Muslim society dismisses Islamist school video as “an unintended mistake and an oversight”

Here’s a short and brand-new article from Philly.com about the video I posted this morning, a video showing young children at an Islamic Center spewing hatred and bigotry.

Yes, they should indeed investigate how this happened, and while they’re doing it they should take steps to prevent the further hate-brainwashing of young Muslims. But really, how could this highly choreographed scenario, complete with a script, be “an unintended mistake and an oversight”? Maybe somebody wasn’t paying attention, which accounts for the “oversight”, but what about the “mistake” part?

Oy gewalt!

h/t: Malgorzata

26 Comments

  1. Steve
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Mistake my ass!

    • Malgorzata Koraszews
      Posted May 5, 2019 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

      Well, it obviously was a mistake to upload the video on the YouTube channel when somebody not sharing the desire to cut off people’s heads could translate it from Arabic into English and show what children are taught in this illustrious institution. Without this “unintended mistake” nobody would know and the teaching would continue without any problems.

      • Posted May 5, 2019 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

        I agree that the “unintended mistake” was uploading the video where kafirs could see it.

  2. Steve Gerrard
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    To be fair to the kids, they don’t appear to be singing in the video, rather dancing to a recording that is being played. They probably don’t speak Arabic fluently, and may not be aware of what all the words mean.

    Still, sad to see the adults setting them up that way.

    • Malgorzata Koraszews
      Posted May 5, 2019 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      You probably didn’t manage to watch the video to the end. When it comes to reading the poem containing all the worst parts, children are definitely reading it in fluent Arabic. Only the initial song is coming from a recording.

  3. Randall Schenck
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    I think they mean it was a Trump mistake. That is, the mistake was getting caught.

    • Murali
      Posted May 5, 2019 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

      In the US, what legal steps can be taken to tackle this problem?

      Trump keeps talking about radicals entering the US. He may be pandering to a xenophobic people, but that does not mean he is completely off the mark. The Christians may brainwash their children into believing some nonsense about the creation, but the alleged (because I have not seen it) content of this video is more serious.

      • Ken Phelps
        Posted May 5, 2019 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

        Careful, you’re wandering into the Sam Harris minefield. You must remember:
        – All religions are the same.
        – Beliefs do not inform actions.
        – Religious beliefs are genetic, therefore
        criticism is racism.
        – It was all caused by U.S. imperialism
        in Pennsylvania.

        • Filippo
          Posted May 5, 2019 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

          “– [Religious] Beliefs do not inform actions.”

          I thought that that was the Scott Atran [“Arab Street” political beliefs/opinion] minefield.

        • rickflick
          Posted May 5, 2019 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

          …and you can teach your kids anything you want. You own them.

      • max blancke
        Posted May 5, 2019 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

        “Xenophobic” has become an accusation to silence people who are unwilling to go along with open borders or other schemes that those using the phrase are trying to impose on us.

        I have certainly been called xenophobic by people who, as far as I can determine, speak only English at home, and have never lived outside particular urban areas of the US. But if you came to the ranch in late summer when the family is there, you would hear at least four languages spoken. My Mom always makes a point of seeing that we hang flags from each of the states and countries where family members live, as they converge on the ranch each summer. And it is no small task. But sure, I am the xenophobe.

        Funny, but as for leftist lack of self awareness, there was a good one yesterday. You just can’t make this stuff up. In a protest against US Imperialism, they forcefully occupied sovereign territory of another country, in this case the Venezuelan embassy.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted May 5, 2019 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

        Best I can tell you is, things are changing for facebook, google and others. They are taking some action themselves to get right wing crazies off of their platforms but the govt. may crack down some as well. Cleaning up the internet is a very big job.

      • rustybrown
        Posted May 6, 2019 at 12:15 am | Permalink

        “In the US, what legal steps can be taken to tackle this problem?”

        Trump’s travel ban on Muslim terrorist states is a start. It’s one of the first things he instituted upon gaining office and liberals screamed bloody murder while lefty judges issued injunctions.

        Thankfully, the SC upheld the latest version of the ban. I read somewhere not to long ago that it’s prevented roughly 10,000 would be immigrants from those terrorist states from entering the country. Step in the right direction.

        • Dragon
          Posted May 6, 2019 at 9:38 am | Permalink

          Oh those ‘lefty’ judges appointed by Reagan and the two Bushes! Darn those judges ruling in favor of the US Constitution and no establishment of religion back when the Muslim ban was written as a Muslim ban.

          Sure, the WH eventually rewrote it to be a ban on immigration from countries that did not share sufficient data with us. Legally worded to disguise the intention. At that point it was arguably constitutional. That resolved the issues those ‘lefty’ judges insisted upon.

          I do specifically note the ban does not ban immigration from a particular terrorist state whose leader is great friends with Jared and whose trusted and loyal confidants cut a journalist up with a bone saw.

          I would be very interested in that 10,000 number. Could you post a citation from a credible source?

          • rustybrown
            Posted May 6, 2019 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

            Well, for clarification, by “lefty” here I meant progressive, PC, or some such nomenclature to describe their pro-immigration leanings. Regardless, I’m sure you’re aware of the common phenomenon of a judges political leanings turning out to be much different from whomever appointed them. Happens all the time.

            The injunction was bogus from the start and the SC sidestepped the Constitutional concerns by rightfully determining that the president has clear authority over these matters through the INA and that similar actions have occurred by past presidents without controversy. From lawfareblog:

            “The (INA) provision empowers the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” if he “finds” that entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The court explains that this language “exudes deference” to the president, a deference heightened by the foreign policy and national security context. The court also emphasizes that the statute only mentions a presidential finding of national interest; the statute does not, however, seem to require the president “to explain that finding with sufficient detail to enable judicial review.” Moreover, given the sparse explanations offered in previous exercises of §1182 (such as President Bill Clinton’s 1996 exclusion of Sudanese government and military officials), Trump’s explanation of the ban’s purpose more than suffices.”

            https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-travel-ban-ruling-summary

            I’d be happy for the SC to specifically rule on Trump’s ban in relation to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution because it’s plainly ludicrous to think that the EC applies to non-citizens and/or the EC should prohibit us from deciding what immigration practices are in our best interest. I think we have every right to decide who does or does not gain entrance into our country for any reason we like and I’m sure the SC would ultimately admit that was the framers intent.

            As for the 10,000 number (which I said was rough) the lawfare article linked above has Justice Breyer noting that “only a “miniscule percentage” of immigrant visas were granted for those eligible (only two out of 6,555 eligible in the first month after the (travel ban) was promulgated)”

            That was just in the first month. And here’s another article about the numbers. Haven’t read the whole thing; looks like it’s a good deal more than 10,000 though. Thanks Trump!

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/03/11/muslim-travel-ban-less-immigration-and-few-waivers/#7a357f2a27f0

            • Dragon
              Posted May 6, 2019 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

              @rustybrown
              Thank you for the citations. Interesting numbers.
              Regarding “Well, for clarification, by “lefty” here I meant progressive, PC, or some such nomenclature to describe their pro-immigration leanings. Regardless, I’m sure you’re aware of the common phenomenon of a judges political leanings turning out to be much different from whomever appointed them. Happens all the time.”
              I was aware, but viewed it with a very different tact than you did. My understanding was that many previous presidents appointed people to the bench for competence first and political leanings later. Because judges are supposed to rule on the law, not on political ideologies.
              Sure, there were a few partisan judges, particularly the SC, in the past. But only Trump/McConnell made partisan loyalty the only litmus test and appointed so many unqualified (re ABA) judges. Barack Obama had more nominated who were listed by the ABA as unqualified (14), but he did not advance the judges so deemed.
              Thus, among the travel ban rulings e,g, Obama nominated Boasberg, who was also nominated to a FISA court by Justice Roberts. His judicial service includes ruling against Hillary Clinton re emails and for Trump re tax returns. Hardly progressive or PC. Derrick Watson had few notable cases. James Robart was appointed by W, and has a smattering of notable cases, but most of which are not particularly partisan. He ruled one of the first injunctions which was upheld unanimously by a three judge panel.

              The original Muslim ban was indeed badly written – the ban, not the injunction, was ‘bogus from the start’. The SC didn’t rule on whether that constituted an EC violation, because by then it had been rewritten and the previous ban was moot. The decision referenced the additional clauses in the new ban that ‘all add plausibility to the travel ban’s facially claimed purposes’. The original ban didn’t have those and may well have been struck down for EC violation even with the deference you noted.

              You state “I’d be happy for the SC to specifically rule on Trump’s ban in relation to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution because it’s plainly ludicrous to think that the EC applies to non-citizens and/or the EC should prohibit us from deciding what immigration practices are in our best interest.” Remember, one of the lawsuits regarded citizens who had family in the affected countries who previously traveled to the US and didn’t commit terrorist activity. Thus the ban affected citizens. Thus the EC protections are not ‘plainly ludicrous’, there is an argument to be made. I am not saying it would have prevailed, but it was not ‘ludicrous’.

              Note that people affected by the ban include non-Muslims who try to escape those countries.

              • rustybrown
                Posted May 6, 2019 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

                In explaining what I meant by “leftist” I said “some such nomenclature to describe their pro-immigration leanings”, which is usually (but not always) associated with the left, especially these days. So I think my meaning was clear at that point, and I don’t see any purpose in quibbling about it. You can plug in any word you like if it makes you feel better!

                You say: “My understanding was that many previous presidents appointed people to the bench for competence first and political leanings later. Because judges are supposed to rule on the law, not on political ideologies. Sure, there were a few partisan judges, particularly the SC, in the past. But only Trump/McConnell made partisan loyalty the only litmus test”

                Gimme a break. Ideology has always been a concern for appointing judges and is not a new Trumpian practice. It could be very credibly argued that Democrats are not only the first but the most guilty offenders for placing ideology above all else starting with LBJ’s failed attempts to stack the courts, continuing through with “Borked” becoming a verb, and recently culminating in the shameful spectacle of attempting to ruin a man’s life and reverse the standard of innocent until proven guilty with baseless charges against Kavanaugh.

                I agree with you however that the original ban was badly written, mainly because it was sloppy, overbroad and lacked exemptions for greencard holders which created much unnecessary chaos. The errors were well within what I would expect with a neophyte president and his chaotic transition. Yet the travel ban was subsequently refined, clarified and ratified by the SC. It’s worth noting that when challenged, Trump (whom many describe as an out of control dictator) deferred to the courts and rule of law throughout the entire legal process. This was very much unlike Obama, who acted much more like a dictator than Trump ever has.

                You continue: “Remember, one of the lawsuits regarded citizens who had family in the affected countries who previously traveled to the US and didn’t commit terrorist activity. Thus the ban affected citizens.”

                That’s a stretch that would not make it in the courts. I’ll stick with my description of ludicrous for the reasons I stated.

                And the fact that non-Muslims were affected is irrelevant and actually works against the theory Trump was targeting Muslims.

              • Dragon
                Posted May 7, 2019 at 10:37 am | Permalink

                I think you mean Roosevelt packing the courts, not LBJ. I was well aware of Roosevelt, which was why I stated ‘many’ and not ‘all’.
                Bork was an extremist who thought the President was supreme in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution, and endeavored to cover up all the crimes of Watergate. He favored overturning decades of civil rights laws and voting rights. In other words, he had a significant history of ignoring the law. He should have been voted down. That is why even 6 Republican senators voted against him.

                “That’s a stretch that would not make it in the courts.” Did you miss the fact that it did indeed make it in the courts? At every level that actually ruled on it (sans SC).

                Kavanaugh – Those accusations were corroborated with similar accusations, and contemporaneous statements. They may not have met ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, but they were far from baseless.

                Finally, “This was very much unlike Obama, who acted much more like a dictator than Trump ever has.” This opinion demonstrates no foundation in fact. Obama may have issued 276 EOs. Trump issued 105 in 1/4 the time. https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders
                Both of them have had a number of EOs overturned by the courts and the bureaucrats followed the courts.
                When did Obama suggest or imply to his underlings that they lie to the courts and Congress? Did you even read the entire Mueller report?

              • rustybrown
                Posted May 7, 2019 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

                Correct, I meant Roosevelt. And I obviously left out many other attempts by Democrats to politicize the court so whatever your feelings about Bork or any of them, I think I backed up my point that your statement “only Trump/McConnell made partisan loyalty the only litmus test” is specious at best.

                By “That’s a stretch that would not make it in the courts” I meant it would not ultimately prevail in the SC.

                Regarding Kavanaugh, all of the “similar accusations” that came out against him were shown to be completely baseless, some bordering on criminal. With the main accusation, Ford was granted an open hearing yet failed to provide any material substantiation for her claims while revealing several contradictions in her story. “They MAY not have met ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” you say? That’s the understatement of the century. The so-called “evidence” against Kavanaugh is laughably weak and wouldn’t be considered worthy of serious investigation by any police department in the country, and it’s certain that charges would not be brought, which means it would never get to a courtroom. So, not only didn’t it meet the standard of reasonable doubt, it didn’t meet the lowest standards you could think of, like “plausibly true”.

                Last, there’s ample documentation of Obama’s lawlessness, although the MSM was to busy licking his boots to cover most of it. The link below highlights just a sampling.

                Hell, Obama himself (a “Constitutional scholar” remember) admits he flouted the Constitution. When DACA was rejected by Congress, Obama decreed it anyway, after having said many times previously he had no Constitutional authority to do so.

                https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency

        • Murali
          Posted May 6, 2019 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

          “Trump’s travel ban on Muslim terrorist states is a start.”

          I see; so there are concrete steps being taken. Are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq included in the list?

          • rustybrown
            Posted May 6, 2019 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

            raq was included in an earlier version but has since been removed. The list was mostly (or entirely, I forget which) comprised of countries that were identified by the Obama administration for travel restrictions due to their high terrorist activities and the fraud and difficulty in vetting visa applicants.

            Despite working off of Obama’s list progressives heads exploded when Trump took action; don’t ask me to explain that.

            • rustybrown
              Posted May 6, 2019 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

              Iraq

  4. Roger
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Oops I slipped on a banana and accidentally painted the Sistine Chapel. –Michelangelo

  5. Rich Sanderson
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    It was an “oversight” that they got caught. I think that is what they mean.

    Fuck these extremists.

  6. Stephen Wilson
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    I was assigned to the US Embassy in Damascus. Sitting in the Embassy cafe, a group of co-workers and I heard children in the elementary school across the street singing in the playground. An Arabic speaker colleague listened and said, “Those kids are singing anti-American songs!” I replied, “A kids…they blow up so quickly.”

    • Stephen Wilson
      Posted May 6, 2019 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      Obviously, AH” kids…


%d bloggers like this: