News and Analysis (9/19/12)

Do the Feds offer phony fatwas to radicalize American Muslim youth? According to the complaint “federal agents invented a foreign Imam who gave the bombing his blessing after Daoud’s own Imam at the Islamic Foundation and a second Imam told him ‘that type of rhetoric was improper and not consistent with Islamic belief’”:

Fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment. “The current standard for restricting speech – or punishing it after it has in fact caused violence – was laid out in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio. Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited” …:

… but discretion is the better part of valor. “Tunisia’s ruling Islamist party, Ennahda, condemned what it called an act of “aggression” against Mohammad but urged Muslims not to fall into a trap intended to ‘derail the Arab Spring and turn it into a conflict with the West'”:

“An American Coptic Christian activist whose California TV facility was used to make an anti-Islamic film that touched off protests across the Muslim world” joins the chorus of those “deceived by the film’s producer about its inflammatory content”:

“The guy who made it was a bit obscure, but the people who’ve promoted it and circulated it are part of a very well-organized and very, very well-funded network of activists who’ve received funding from mainstream conservative foundations,” — Journalist and author Doug Saunders:

Mitt Romney’s one-sided view that Palestinians alone are responsible for the failure of the peace process disqualifies him as a peacemaker, but Palestinians and Israelis also have doubts about the two-state solution and the U.S. “roadmap”:

New talks held on Iran’s nuclear program: What is the preferred solution to the nuclear issue?? Negotiations or sanctions?

Taliban shifts strategy and so does NATO:

Benghazi Renews debate on Al-Qaeda:

 

Leave a Reply