In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Grande Strategy

Davi Barker Responds to Islamophobe Dave Gaubatz

12/8/2013


Posted from Muslims for Liberty
This year, on Halloween, I was contacted by Dave Gaubatz, author ofMuslim Mafia. It’s a rather long, poorly reasoned book that mostly boasts about the number of documents his son, Chris Gaubatz stole from CAIR’s national office while masquerading as a convert to Islam (They call thattaqiyyah in anti-Muslim circles). I read his book, highlighter in hand, searching for the smoking gun he said was hidden in all those documents. However, my highlighter went unused.


Gaubatz actually contacted me in response to an article I wrote in 2010 titled Does Dave Gaubatz Support Violence Against Me?. It’s a pretty straight forward question. Gaubatz claims to have five foolproof gotcha questions to identify Who is an Islamic Terrorist Supporter. I was curious to see what he thought of my answers, and he wanted to conduct a hard hitting one-on-one interview to determine if I supported Islamic terrorism.

What follows is my complete correspondence with Dave Gaubatz. I waited until now to publish them because I wanted to be relatively certain he wasn’t going to reply to my last message. At some point I’ll write up a more thorough analysis of his statements, but until then, here’s the fully monty.

Mr. Barker,
A while back you wrote an article pertaining to one of my articles listed on Family Security Matters. (Who are terrorist supporters?) I have always been a patriot to my country and went to war in Iraq to help the innocent Muslim people who were being abused by Saddam and in the name of Islam by Al Qaeda. I do not believe in violence against anyone. It is the responsibility of America to punish Islamic terrorists and their supporters who target America.

I would like to interview you. The interview will be tough, but unless you are a supporter of Islamic based terrorism you will do fine in the interview. If you are a supporter it will come out during the interview. Are you willing?

Dave Gaubatz
davegaubatz@gmail.com

Dave,



I’m intrigued, although hesitant, as I’m sure you can understand. Other than your book “Muslim Mafia” and your article “Who is an Islamic Terrorist Supporter?” I’m unfamiliar with your work, but the crowd you’re surrounded by doesn’t engender much good will from me. Also, I have been out of that fray for a while, focused more intensely on universal human struggles than Muslim struggles. Even the article you referenced is from 2010, and on a column I no longer update. I guess what I’m saying is I’m rusty, and I don’t feel prepared for any kind of a debate. But I am open to an honest discussion of the topic of terrorism, as long as it’s a sincere inquiry.What are the perimeters of the interview you’d like to do? Do you have a radio show? A blog? Would it be live or recorded? Would there be a time limit, or open ended? I have some concern that whatever I say will be taken out of context. I’m especially not interested in arguing about disputed historical examples. I’d much rather talk about universal principles and definitions. If we can agree to focus on a clearly defined topic, and avoid taking every tangent, and speaking over one another, I think it could be fruitful.I have devised 3 simple rules that govern my voluntary participation in a heated discussion.



1) I will never advocate the initiation of force and I will not pretend to have civil discourse with someone who advocates force against me.
2) Principles are universal. By applying a principle to others you de facto accept that the principle may be consistently applied to you.
3) Reason and evidence. I don’t entertain arguments that persist after logical fallacies or contradictions have been clearly exposed.If these rules aren’t followed, I can’t call it a civil discussion or a sincere inquiry for Truth, and life is too short. For that reason I’d like to start by discussing the article that sparked your interest in me. It was titled, “Does Dave Gaubatz support violence against me?” and though you say you do not believe in violence against anyone, based on what you’ve advocated, I suspect you won’t be able to sustain that position. So, if you agree, I’d like to begin by examining that question.
Peace
Davi


Hello Davi,

I agree with you on many points. Life is too short to argue and fight. I like using clear evidence, not rhetoric as many do. Based on this I like people to use specific information when saying I am advocating this or that. Using my article about supporters of Islam my thesis was that terrorists and their supporters must be observed, and if their actions cross the line of illegaility(sic) the people and organizations advocating violence in America must be punished in accordance with the laws of the U.S. (Constitution).

Davi I have been all across the world, specifically in Islamic countries for well over 30 years, an Arabic linguist, and have personally visited over 250 mosques in America. Many more throughout the world. I do not use the Quran as evidence in any of my books or articles. I use materials by Islamic scholars that are used in virtually every mosque in america. The vast majority are Saudi backed and have a Salafist (wahhabee) background. There is an abundance of materials that the mosques have that explain the thoughts and beliefs about Prophet Mohammed. I was a long time U.S. Federal Agent. I use first hand evidence only. If I go into a mosque and there are manuals by Ali Al Timimi and the Imam is encouraging his worshippers(sic) to study the writings of Timimi, it is a red flag to me. Timimi was arrested and convicted of advocating terrorism and jihad against America (around 2005). If I were to go into a church and there were booklets by Timothy McVeigh, and the Preacher was encouraging his worshippers(sic) to study McVeigh’s thoughts and how a Christian should behave, this would be a red flag to anyone that violence is possible. Why is it so hard for people to understand that if a mosque has an abundance of materials by convicted terrorists, there is a high probability violence and hatred will come from that mosque. People who support any terrorist (Muslim or Christian) should be held accountable in the eyes of the law. Do you agree?

To get more specific about my article I firmly believe that terrorists and their supporters should not be allowed to advocate their plans for violence in America. Al qaeda has said over and over they desire to kill all Christians and Jews wherever they may reside. Why should we not believe them? If the mosques in America have materials by Al Qaeda and other terrorists, this must be stopped. Who should stop this type action? I believe it is up to our politicians, military, and senior law enforcement to protect our country. Right now they are allowing violence to be advocated by Islamic leaders in America. The american people have a right to shout loud and long to our leaders we want action taken against Islamic based terrorists and any person/organization supporting them. Do you agree or disagree. There has never been one article or any lecture that I have given that calls for any violence by the American people. There have been many articles by me and many lectures were I have demanded our leaders protect our country and our children.

I do not know your background. Are you Muslim? What is your knowledge of Islam? I am really not interested in debates and screaming at one another during a radio show. I am interested in trying to understand why the media immediately stands up and supports organizations such as CAIR National and their hatred/violence in the name of Islam instead of supporting Americans like myself who have fought on the front lines to protect innocent Muslims and others. (I was the 1st U.S. Federal Agent in Iraq). there is an abundance of evidence that CAIR and their supporters are aligned more with Hamas, Al qaeda, and Sharia law before they will align themselves with the U.S. Constitution.

I had mentioned I was a Federal Agent, being so, I rely on hard evidenc e(sic) only. I encourage you to read my book. It is based on 1st hand evidence only. I sent a team of 5 people into CAIR National for over 6 months. We obtained over 300 hours of video/audio and obtained over 12,000 documents CAIR was in the process of shredding that had criminal evidence against them. CAIR has already sworn in federal court the doucments(sic) were their’s. They have never rejected the documents in my book are innacurate(sic). Again they swore to a federal judge the documents were theirs and accurate. I would like to ask you a few specific questions. Let me know,

Respectfully, Dave G.

I have attached a couple of articles you may not have seen. One is an article about my work in Iraq and the innocent Muslims I saved from Al qaeda, one photo is me with Mohammed Rehaief 9Iraqi(sic) lawyer who helped save POW Jessica Lynch. I saved his entire family from being killed by Al qaeda and Saddam forces for his helping Americans, and I sent you a copy of the title page of a manual found in numerous U.S. mosques, and written by friends of CAIT(sic). The manual tells Muslims how to go underground if they kill U.S. law enforcement, Do you feel this type material should be in mosques?


Dave,

Whow! I couldn’t disagree more. Rhetoric is one third of the Trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) which has been the foundation of rational, evidence based thinking in some form in virtually every advanced civilization. That includes Ancient Rome, the Islamic Golden Age, the European Enlightenment, the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution. I can understand rejecting the manipulative rhetoric of pundits, but rejecting the science rhetoric itself would prevent any coherent discussion from taking place, because we could not come to common definitions of our terms. For example, before I can address any of these issues we need a common definition of terrorism.

I’ve inferred from your article that you use the definition: “groups who advocate the deaths of innocent people and the overthrow of sovereign governments.” You also list “any criminal offense” and “conviction” in your criterion. Would you say that is correct?I would dispute this definition on two grounds. First, those who advocate the death of innocent people but do not advocate the overthrow of sovereign governments, as in the KKK, are still terrorists. Second, those who advocate the overthrow of sovereign governments, but do not advocate the death of innocent people, as in Gandhi and other civil disobedients, are not terrorists.

I realize this may seem frustrating, but this is not word play. It is absolutely essential before we can move forward. Because without an objective definition all we have to go on is, “identified by the Government as terrorists” which you may have noticed includes a number or right-wing and anti-government ideologies that do not advocate the death of innocent people, as in the Sovereign Citizens. Misguided they may be. Criminal they may be. But terrorists they are not, no matter what what rhetoric the FBI uses. The FBI called trading with silver as an alternative currency “economic terrorism” in the Liberty Dollar case, which is absurd. The Governor of Florida called feeding homeless people without a permit “food terrorism” in reference to Food Not Bombs, which is utter nonsense. The city of Concord recently identified the Free State Project as a potential terrorist threat in documents filed with the DHS. The Free State Project is nothing but a caravan of libertarians to New Hampshire to get politically active, and they have publicly rejected violence as a political tool since their inception. So, while “identified by the Government as terrorists” may be a valid definition for a lawyer, it is not a valid definition for an ethicist, which is all I’m interested in.
So, here’s the definition I propose:




(the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear) ~ Princeton

Does that sound ok to you? Because I’ll be coming back to that repeatedly.
I’ve identified the following questions in your previous email:

1) People who support any terrorist (Muslim or Christian) should be held accountable in the eyes of the law. Do you agree?
2) Al Qaeda has said over and over they desire to kill all Christians and Jews wherever they may reside. Why should we not believe them?
3) If the mosques in America have materials by Al Qaeda and other terrorists, this must be stopped. Who should stop this type action?
4) Are you Muslim?
5) What is your knowledge of Islam?
6) The manual tells Muslims how to go underground if they kill U.S. law enforcement, Do you feel this type material should be in mosques?

Does this mean the interview has begun? If so, I would like to publish the correspondence, although I’m not sure where, because as I said before I don’t maintain the Examiner column anymore. If the interview has begun, I would like to establish a few things first. Namely, do you support violence against me? That’s my rule #1.
To answer this question, I propose the following thought experiment. Let’s cast you in the role of prosecutor, and me in the role of defendant. You have put forward a criterion for identifying one who supports terrorism:




1) Do you or do you know anyone/organization who promotes the ideology of Al Qaeda and other well known terrorist organizations?

2) Do you or do you know anyone/organization who provides financial support to a terrorist organizations(sic)?

3) Have you or do you know anyone who has joined a terrorist organization?

4) Have you or do you know anyone who has committed a terrorist act (any criminal offense) for a terrorist organization?

5) Have you or do you know anyone who has provided written or verbal support of a convicted terrorist?
I assume, since you have said that it is up to politicians, military, and senior law enforcement to deal with those who support terrorism, and these are all agencies of force and coercion, that you support violence against those who fail this test. So you see, our two questions are one and the same. You hope to identify whether or not I support terrorism. I hope to identify whether or not you support violence against me.So, dear prosecutor, what if I fail every one of these tests? If you accept the government’s rhetoric that Sovereign Citizens, the Free State Project, Food Not Bombs, CAIR, Wikileaks, the Occupy Movement, and the Liberty Dollar are terrorist organizations, I think I do. But I do not fit this criterion by any objective definition of terrorism, with the exception of the taxes taken from me by the coercive agencies you’ve listed.So what do you advocate be done with me? Should I be imprisoned? Deported? Shot?



Hope you can clarify.
Peace
Davi


Davi

My work has always focused on terrorists and their supporters, based on my work as a U.S. Federal Agent. You failed to mention providing material support to terrorists. It is very easy reading between the lines of what you write. You are trying to show how the U.S., with our law enforcement, military, and government fall under your definition of being terrorists themselves. For instance for America to go to war with Muslim terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and to support Israel over Hamas and Palestine is somehow wrong.

I believe in U.S. law as dictated by our U.S. Constitution and not by liberal universities like Stanford, nor by anything within Sharia law. If a person, persons, organizations likeHamas(sic), or foreign governments attack or are making plans to attack America, I believe it is our miltary(sic), law enforcement, and governments decision to counter the jihadist attacks using the least form of violence needed, but if it requires armed force by our military to control the situation I am behind them.

Davi you are very typical of most people who support the Islamic ideology, Hamas, CAIR, and Sharia law. You like to play with words instead of just answering tough questions. I have seen this over and over by Islamic scholars. They are afraid of the truth and will dodge tough questions from journalists like myself.

I propose we make this easy. You ask me any 10 questions you want to. I don’t care what the questions are, I will answer them. I will ask you 10 questions of my choice and you answer. Then you can publish with any media you choose and I will have the interviews published at a media outlet of my choice.

In the mean time I will write my 10 questions and submit to you. you can answer or not. I will only report what you write or I will report you decided not to answer and the readers can judge for themselves if you are trying to doge the tough questions.

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Davi I have little doubt you will not answer my questions. Why? Because based on what you have written it is very clear you are a supporter of Islamic based terrorism against Israel and any person or government that aligns itself with Israel. I align myself with Israel, our friends, do you?

To sum all of this up either answer the 10 questions I will send, or continue hiding behind your pretty words while at the same time providing material support to Islamic based terrorist groups, Again I do not use my energy behind wasteless(sic) rhetoric, just first-hand evidence. Dave G.

MATERIAL SUPPORT: 18 U.S.C. 2339B prohibits “providing material support or resources” to an organization the Secretary of State has designated as a “foreign terrorist organization.” The material support ban was first passed as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The provision’s purpose is to deny terrorist groups the ingredients necessary for planning and carrying out attacks. Congress was concerned that terrorist organizations with charitable or humanitarian arms were raising funds within the United States that could then be used to further their terrorist activities. The provision outlawed any support to these groups, irrespective of whether that support was intended for humanitarian purposes.

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled “Terrorism”:

“International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines “international terrorism” in a nearly identical way, replacing “primarily” outside the U.S. with “totally” outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).


Dave,

I don’t appreciate being diagnosed so quickly. You said, “it is very clear you are a supporter of Islamic based terrorism against Israel and any person or government that aligns itself with Israel” referring specifically to Hamas. Yet, I have not said word one about Hamas or Israel. Just to make sure, I searched my entire archive and I have never written an article about Hamas. The only thing I’ve ever written about Hamas was in the comments section of an article years ago where I praised a woman who publicly defied the dictates of Hamas by smoking hookah in a public cafe. I called her heroic and courageous. To label me a supporter of a terrorist organization (make no mistake, Hamas absolutely fits the definition of terrorism I provided) with absolutely no evidence, is a despicable thing to do. But worse, you have done this based solely on a generalization you’ve drawn from other Muslims you’ve apparently spoken to.I am agreeing to this correspondence because I have decided to regard you as an individual. I have decided not to judge you according to other patriots I have spoken to, and to hear you speak for yourself. And whether I agree or disagree with you, to sincerely attempt to understand how you think.I expect the same courtesy.


I completely acknowledge and empathize with your need for security, as well the security of the people of Israel… and Iraq, and Afghanistan, and China, and Africa. All humans everywhere have a need for security, and I have no desire to infringe upon that need. But I also have a need for security, and you are not meeting that need for me.

You may come from a “thank-you-for-your-service” culture, but I don’t. When someone brags about their soldiering and their experience as a Federal Agent I experience that as a red flag, and very nearly as a threat. Here’s how the dominoes fall in my head. You have said that those who support terrorism should be dealt with by the police and military. The police and military are agencies of violence. Now you have labeled me a supporter of Hamas, a terrorist organization, which I am not, and never have been. Those facts lead irreconcilably to the conclusion that you believe I should be dealt with by the police and military, by violence. A to B. B to C. Ergo A to C. Based on no evidence, you have convicted me, and being a former Federal Agent I imagine there are phone calls you can make to unjustly make my life a living hell. This does not meet my need for security. That was rule number 1 in my first email. I don’t threaten you, and you don’t threaten me, or I don’t participate.

I’m sorry if you find it frustrating or dodgy, but I can’t answer your questions if I don’t understand your terms. If you believe the Princeton definition of terrorism describes the US government that’s interesting, but not at all relevant to this discussion. I am only trying to understand your definition for terrorism, so I can answer your questions. Thank you for providing it. I have a few reservations about that definition, but it may be sufficient for the scope of this discussion. I’ll use that definition for the remainder of this correspondence.

If you want to limit yourself to 10 questions that’s perfectly fine with me, but I was gearing for an ongoing discussion just as long as you needed to feel satisfied. My whole purpose in listing your questions was to acknowledge that they had been received, that I was not ignoring them, and I would get back to them. That’s part of my training in active listening. I’m willing to answer as many tough questions as you have, so long as you answer mine, but I feel like mine has been repeatedly ignored.


I don’t need 10 questions. I have just one. Do you support state violence against me for what I advocate? Now, I think that question warrants some time investigating what I advocate before you answer, but maybe not. So, if you could address my domino scenario above, and give me a clear “yes” or “no” with explanation, I’ll be satisfied, and we can continue.

Perhaps we are failing to communicate because of the medium of email. If you’d like to bring the discussion into real time I’d like to have it hosted by a third party, so that I can be assured an objective record, and a moderator to keep the discussion on topic and civil. I asked Derrick J Freeman, host of Peace News Now, and he’s willing to host it as a special edition of his show. I frequently go on his show to talk about Bitcoin news. He is neither a Muslim nor a Patriot. He is a voluntaryist libertarian, and he has training in mediation. If that’s not agreeable I have other alt-media contacts I could ping. Let me know what you think.Peace,
Davi
Vision Without Glasses

0 comments:

Post a Comment