At last the truth -- the truth we have repeated here for years -- is coming out. "Inside the Ring," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times (thanks to Matthew):
The international Sunni jihadist group Muslim Brotherhood set up numerous U.S. front groups since the 1990s that should be regarded as hostile and a threat to the United States, a Pentagon Joint Staff analyst said.Stephen Caughlin, a lawyer and military intelligence specialist on the Joint Staff, stated in a Sept. 7 memorandum that many U.S. Muslim groups viewed as moderate by the Justice Department and other government agencies secretly are linked to the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. The groups also are engaged in influence and deception operations designed to mask their true aims, he said.
Documents entered into evidence in the federal terrorism trial in Dallas of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity charged with illegally funding the Palestinian Hamas terrorist group, reveal new security threats from a network of more than 29 U.S. Muslim groups.
"These documents are beginning to define the structure and outline of domestic jihad threat entities, associated nongovernmental organizations and potential terrorist or insurgent support systems," Mr. Caughlin said.
Specifically, a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum "describes aspects of the global jihad's strategic information warfare campaign and indications of its structure, reach and activities," Mr. Caughlin said.
The Muslim Brotherhood memo on organizing Muslims in North America said that all members "must understand their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
Mr. Caughlin said in his memo that "consequently, outreach strategies must be adjusted in the face of credible information that seeming Islamic humanitarian or professional nongovernmental organizations may be part of the global jihad with potential for being part of the terrorist or insurgent support system," he said.
Mr. Caughlin said the 1991 memorandum identifies the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) as part of the Muslim Brotherhood. The ISNA, one of more than 300 unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, recently became a subject of controversy among officials who opposed the Justice Department's participation in a conference held last month, despite opposition from two members of Congress.
In August, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, and Rep. Sue Myrick, North Carolina Republican, wrote to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to oppose the Justice Department's attendance at the ISNA conference in Chicago as a "grave mistake" because it would legitimize a group with "extremist origins."
The Justice Department said in response that its participation at the Labor Day weekend meeting was part of "outreach efforts ... to educate the public about how the department works to protect religious freedom, voting rights, economic opportunity, and many other rights."
Mr. Caughlin warned in his memo that such outreach "can cause those responsible for its success to so narrowly focus on the outreach relationship that they miss the surrounding events and lose perspective."
"This could undermine unity of effort in homeland security, lead to potential for embarrassment for the [U.S. government] and legitimize threat organizations by providing them domestic sanctuary."
No war of Ideas
Sen. Joe Lieberman pressed senior U.S. intelligence and security officials this week on what the Bush administration is doing to counter the ideology of Islamic extremism domestically and internationally.
The answer from the top officials: Not much.
Mr. Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said during a hearing Monday that a war of ideas is needed to counter Islamic extremists.
"Because this is a war, but it is ultimately a war against, and with, an ideology that is inimical to our own values of freedom and tolerance and diversity," the Connecticut independent said.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III revealed during the hearing that the FBI has no counterideology response other than its "outreach" to Muslim-American communities so they "understand the FBI" and address "the radicalization issue," he said.
Asked whether the FBI has a responsibility to wage a battle of ideas within U.S. Muslim-American communities, Mr. Mueller said: "You put that where I would say no, that it would not be our responsibility for any religion to engage in the war of ideas."
The FBI's responsibility, he said, is "to explain that once one goes over the line and it becomes not a war of ideas but a criminal offense, this is what you can expect, and to elicit the support of those in whatever religious community to assist us in assuring that those who cross that line are appropriately investigated and convicted."
The comment shows that despite the creation of a dedicated FBI intelligence-gathering branch, the bureau remains limited to investigation and law enforcement.
Retired Vice Adm. Scott Redd, head of the National Counterterrorism Center who has a strategic operational role in countering terrorism, said one of the "four pillars" of the U.S. war strategy is the "war of ideas," but he noted that there is no "home office" for that effort in the United States.
Retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, said the intelligence community does not conduct any battle of ideas against terrorists in the United States unless there is a foreign connection.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff also said nothing is being done domestically to battle Islamist extremist ideas. The department's incident management team, he said, is focused on civil rights or civil liberties — not fighting terrorists' ideology.
Ain't that the truth. Where is the new Radio Free Europe, where is the new Voice of America, to broadcast into the Islamic world against the jihad ideology?
Fighting the war of ideas -- that is the primary focus of my new book. But I see hardly anyone else working in this area.
Surely this man must be an "islamaphobe" - I bet he gets ignored on these grounds anyhow - great analysis, great article - about time somebody told the truth
Retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, said the intelligence community does not conduct any battle of ideas against terrorists in the United States unless there is a foreign connection.
Battle of ideas against murdering terrorists.
You fucking jerk offs.
America is pinning its future and its safety on a bunch of fucking jerk offs.
What will it take, America? Before we wake up?
We could not find a more naive set of imbeciles to run this country if we tried.
Battle of ideas
This is why we have people on terrorist watch lists roaming around freely in our country.
This is how a student recently indicted on explosives making charges was able to get a student visa with terrorism charges in Egypt. Evidently a news agency was able to find out about charges to which our illustrious state department was blind.
This is why we have TSA giving tours to a known terrorist affiliate - cair - of our airport facilities.
Its a battle of ideas all right. A battle to see which agency can give those who want to kill us the most ideas.
When we stop using bullets and start using academics - the end is in sight.
‘Stay the course’ Rush Limbaugh took a flag-waving Muslim’s call today.
I think he’s starting to get it. After the call, he relayed a conversation he had had with Andy McCarthy about the text of the Qur’an vs. the teachings of the blind sheik (the same?!?!) . He called into question the concept of a Moderate Muslim.
Drip, drip, drip.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
"Mr. Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said during a hearing Monday that a war of ideas is needed to counter Islamic extremists.
.....the people of Connecticut and of the United States should get on their knees and thank God that Ned Lamont was defeated by Mr Lieberman....at least Mr Lieberman thinks a little.....
Can someone explain how we will win a war of ideas when they believe we are the great satan? These people have no history of believing satan, quite the contrary. They want to believe we are the great satan so bad that we could never convince them otherwise, not in 1400 years. They spend their lives on the lookout for satan, among themselves, among us, under rocks, behind trees, they are satanophobes. Satan dominates their lives controls their every movement yet they blame us its irrational. In my opinion we should send an army of therapists over there, we would have a better chance of convincing them once they are well. The most hated figure’s in islam are the Apostate’s, I suggest we circle the wagons around them first.
Three cheers for Mr. Caughlin for speaking out.
A big belch for the others.
If Rush is getting it, he can educate alot of people
(PLEASE POST THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AT OTHER WEBSITES)
The U.S. Senate Project (an initiative to increase congressional awareness of the nature and goals of jihad) currently has 85 volunteers in 39 states.
WE ARE STILL SEEKING ADDITIONAL CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS FROM ALL 50 STATES, ESPECIALLY THE FOLLOWING 12:
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Kansas
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
THE PROJECT: We're looking for people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase, from Amazon or any other source, a copy of Robert Spencer's new book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn't and mail it, on an agreed upon date, to one of the senators in your state. We want to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message. If we get more than two people per state, books can also be sent to the U.S. House of Representatives.
If you'd like to participate (or you just have questions), please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading "Senate," and tell me the state your senator represents, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.
And visit jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I've also designed a graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.
Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.
Right before each of us mails the book, we can issue a press release to various media outlets in every state, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.
One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the Anti-Jihad Caucus in Congress. I'll try to coordinate this project with Rep. Myrick to maximize its effectiveness. I've also been calling various congressional offices to get advice on how best to go about the project.
infidel!
Can you please watch the expletives? I know of some younger kids who read this site (which is commendable) and I'd rather that they not pick up the adult language.
Thanks.
==Asked whether the FBI has a responsibility to wage a battle of ideas within U.S. Muslim-American communities, Mr. Mueller said: "You put that where I would say no, that it would not be our responsibility for any religion to engage in the war of ideas."
Are we more willing to hose the gore of American Christians off the sidwalk than to offend Muslim sensibilities?
And read his answer carefully: it is incoherent, not just from a tactical perspective, but it literally makes no sense whatsoever.
M: "You put that to where I would say 'no.'"
Is there a way to pose the question that would enable him to say yes?
M: "...it would not be our responsibility for any religon to engage in the war of ideas."
He seems to mean, "It is not our job to engage any religion in a war of ideas." Is that fair?
If so, I ask: Even when that religion is professedly dedicated to destroying our nation? And how are we going to win over the moderates? The actual Muslims see those moderates as apostates, and they (moderates) are by definition totally uninfluential among dedicated Muslims.
God must be on our side, or our goose woulda been cooked long ago.
We could not find a more naive set of imbeciles to run this country if we tried.
Posted by: infidel!
You dont have to try.
What most people are really concerned about is that they are not labelled as bigots or racists. As long as they feel good about themselves, that is all that matters.
I posted a comment a few weeks/months ago that I had the opportunity to hear VADM McConnell speak at a government agency as the new DNI. An attendee asked him about illegal immigration, the border, etc. Suffice to say, the answer Mr. McConnell provided was not what the questioner or most in the audience expected. The answer was basically, and I paraphrase, that based upon his previous private sector experience and the needs of this country and its economy, that immigration is a good thing, diversity a good things, ad nauseum. Nothing about controlling our borders, who enters this country, if certain groups should be categorically prohibited from entering, etc. Ah yes, the good old days of Ellis Island - where everyone was carefully screened and many times, refused entry.
So not only must a "battle of ideas" take place against the "very few, very extreme mulsim extremists", but also with our most senior government managers, oops, I mean, "leaders."
It will eventually boil down to the street level: the individual citizen protecting his/her hearth, home, family, etc.
Language stands in our way here. Although this article hits much closer to the mark, there is still an impediment to identifying the true nature of the enemy in that it is slighly misidentified. The word "terrorist" is very abused these days, and one envisions here a group that willy-nilly tosses money and resources, or agitates in favour of, groups that bomb teenagers in coffee shops and commuters on trains or fly planes into buildings.
It is this stereotype that will lead such articles to ridicule. For, although the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) has in the past been directly involved in such activity and now is more covertly involved in supporting groups like Hamas, they can legitimately claim not to support or validate attacks in the West (or, at least they can argue that this is an unfair characterization of their work and goals).
It is important that we describe clearly and precisely what these folks are up to. They would be quite happy, if possible, to set up a Caliphate in the U.S. and eliminate the constitution, without shedding a drop of blood. To simply characterize them as "terrorist" or "pro-terrorist" is facile and at best only close to the mark.
The Ikhwan are radical, vehement islamists bend on world domination. That this puts them in bed with some terrorist groups is true, but they are careful about with whom they associate. You can pin them down on Hamas, but they will argue that this is a legitimate government group or "freedom fighters".
But you will not successfully associate them with ... say, Al Qaeda. Read the Ikhwan literature: they are quite clear that, although they share many common objectives with Osama's army, they condemn them outright as unislamic and an illegal breakaway group. If pushed the right way they may even say that Osama is Takfir.
They have no qualms about condemning jihadist groups, and their actions, if they are not affiliated with those groups. So, to come out guns-blazing and saying the Ikhwan is out and out terrorist, or even pro-terrorist, is to play into their hands. They can, and will try to, bring ridicule to such claims. Watch how they handle these proceedings, particularly when it comes to anyone who oversimplifies by calling them terrorists instead of focussing on their agenda and subversive activities.
We need articles like this but they need to have better analysis, and we need citizens at large to be thinking more generally than about "terrorism". Our society needs to understand that terrorism is only a symptom. Jihadism, and Islamism, like many diseases, don't always display all symptoms. And the Ikhwan have been quite successful in shedding, or publicly appearing to shed, the symptom of "terrorism", while advancing their cause of political jihad. Watch for ICNA, ISNA, MAS and CAIR to broaden their public image campaigns to make it seem laughable that they might be "pro-terrorist" -- while increasing the pitch of their actual jihadism.
Until we get the language right, we may just be helping them advance their cause.
... linked to the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.
Say, this the same outfit that Rep. Nancy Pelosi --- 3rd in line to the American Presidency --- visited recently to learn "what will make Moslem insurgents happy."
Pelosi and her assistants should be taken into federal custody and interrogated as to what plans were devised during that infamous meeting to please Jihad war terrorists (i.e., Moslem activists).
ChristianRepublic
You are right. FBI's Mueller response is not just meangless but is actually incoherent. It indicates a confusion of thought that is hard to credit in a person who holds responsibilty.
Then we have Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, said, "is focused on civil rights or civil liberties — not fighting terrorists' ideology".
What the hell? It is not the job of Homeland Security to focus on civil rights but to secure the nation against terror threats. Chief among the arsenal of weapons one uses in such a battle is dissimulation, disinformation, and propaganda, among others. OTH they may be doing such activities but to admit it would defeat the purpose. Lets hope thats the case.
The Muslim Brotherhood memo on organizing Muslims in North America said that all members "must understand their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
Every one of those groups should have all assets frozen and their directors deported. But, no, we'll spend another 10 years dicking around with them in court. These blood-sucking parasites have found the perfect host.
Jihadwatch generally is best positioned for this battle of ideas, to fight and win against the jihad.
(except fot the defeatists and isolationists who get bogged down with tarbabies and retreating)
But for invective, sarcasm, mockery, and the will to win, where is the applications line up?
Voice of the West.
Our approach to battle Islamist extremist ideas is to insist they have no roots in any type of Islam.
Nancy’s crony, Jane sez,
Get used to it America! We brought them over here on purpose, did you think we didn’t know what we were doing? Ha. Silly people. Wake up and smell the car bomb.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200709/NAT20070913a.html
P.S. As soon as we kill the already dead obl it will all be over and you can feel free to visit you local islamist Dr.
They are incoherent its pathetic, I wound not expect to hear what I am hearing coming from an eighth grader. They are fumbling over the death and destruction they have wrought on us all. Frozen and unable to react, like a deer in the headlights, by pcmcism. We need a thorough house cleaning from top to bottom. Any who were part of the pre 911 situation must go. Generals, Admirals, Senators, Reps, Agency heads, Department heads, Buttheads, heads of all varieties.
Not to belabor it, but I read it again and it makes even less sense than I thought. Then again, maybe it makes more sense than Mueller intended.
He said (to paraphrase), "It is not our business to engage any religion in a battle of ideas." Is this an unwitting admission that the jihadis are practicing Islam, and not perverting Islam? Has our Theologian in Chief been saying that they are not true Muslims, but have "hijacked a religion of peace"?
Anyway, the official position of the United States must be, some day,
Resolved:
Whereas Islam is not a religion, but a bandit code, and
Whereas Islam is inimical to the purpose for which the United States was founded, to wit, freedom of creed, conscience, and commerce, and
Whereas all Islamic nations are anachronistic cesspools of ignorance and tyranny except to the degree that they have adopted certain benefits of Christian culture and society, against which progress they are simultaneously and militantly opposed nevertheless,
etc, etc,
Therefore be it resolved that although no one lawfully in these United States or their territories and possessions shall be unduly molested, detained, confined, or otherwise harassed by law enforcement authorities solely on the basis of his adherence to Islam, nevertheless the protections and immunities conferred upon the practice of religion in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights shall not be extended to Islam or Muslims.
Be it further resolved that the United States offers no protection, rights, privileges immunities, or refuge whatsoever under law to any groups, individuals, ideologies, movements, or religions that advocate the violent overthrow of any civil or governmental institution within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
nfidel!
Can you please watch the expletives? I know of some younger kids who read this site (which is commendable) and I'd rather that they not pick up the adult language.
Thanks.
Sorry - you are right.
Having said that, I wonder which is more obscene - a couple of off color expletives or the actions of the agencies which were created to protect us?
We could not find a more naive set of imbeciles to run this country if we tried.
Posted by: infidel!
We have a winner!
Truer words and all that.
Uh, no you could have.
Remember Al Gore?
How about John Kerry?
Until we get the language right, we may just be helping them advance their cause.
Posted by: Archimedes2
The Mosleum Brotherhood which openly avows that it's goal is the destruction of the USA is a Sunni organization.
Sunni
Houssein Zorkot who was recently arrested moments before killing scores of Americans was a member of Hizbollah. Hizbollah is a Shiite Muslim Organization.
Shiite
Sunni Muslim
- Shiite Muslim
________________
= Muslim
(i.e. Islam is the common denominater.)
Did I get the language right?
(i.e. It's the Islam, stupid!)
The FBI's responsibility, he said, is "to explain that once one goes over the line and it becomes not a war of ideas but a criminal offense, this is what you can expect, and to elicit the support of those in whatever religious community to assist us in assuring that those who cross that line are appropriately investigated and convicted."
___________
Ee-gad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have we not learned that TERRORISM IS NOT a Criminal offense - it's a threat to our very country and way of life - indeed Western Civilization as a whole!!??
Get this IDIOT OUT! NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is there ANYBODY at ALL in Washington that understands the dangers?????!!!??!?!??!?!???
Uh, no you could have.
Remember Al Gore?
How about John Kerry?
Al Gore and or John Kerry would not have gone galavanting off to Iraq to win a cheap reelection victory.
Al Gore and or John Kerry wouldn't have squandered a 750 Billion Dollar Surplus and bankrupted the country as King George Alimight is doing. Check out the value of the dollar.
Recession on the way!
Why is energy expensive. Cuz the dollar ain't worth shit.
A chimpanzee could have done a better job than King George Ibn Bush, the Idiot-in-Chief.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff also said nothing is being done domestically to battle Islamist extremist ideas. The department's incident management team, he said, is focused on civil rights or civil liberties — not fighting terrorists' ideology.
__________________________________________________
Yes, civil rights of Muslims, not for those who wish to battle the Islamist extremist ideals. If Pelosi and Clinton get their way those who wish to participate in this battle will be labelled "hate mongers" and criminals. Think of the millions of dollars we are paying these nitwits to protect us yet they are more concerned with offering an umbrella for the terrorists.
Have we not learned that TERRORISM IS NOT a Criminal offense - it's a threat to our very country and way of life - indeed Western Civilization as a whole!!??
=============
No, because "terrorism" is only a tactic.
Repeat after me:
terrorism is a tactic
terrorism is a tactic
terrorism is a tactic
terrorism is a tactic
terrorism is a tactic
GOT IT?
-----------------------
Okay, now repeat
Islam is a threat to our country and way of life!
Islam's the enemy. Islam's the threat.
Terror is the tactic.
Islam is a threat to our country and way of life!
Islam is a threat to our country and way of life!
Islam is a threat to our country and way of life!
"must understand their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
FOLKS,
There's not a word, not a letter, in the preceeding quote, that any Muhammadan would take issue with.
Ban Islam. No more Muhammadan immigrants.
None, nada, zilch, zero!
"'Because this is a war, but it is ultimately a war against, and with, an ideology that is inimical to our own values of freedom and tolerance and diversity,' the Connecticut independent [Senator Lieberman] said.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III revealed during the hearing that the FBI has no counterideology response other than its "outreach" to Muslim-American communities so they "understand the FBI" and address "the radicalization issue," he said.
Asked whether the FBI has a responsibility to wage a battle of ideas within U.S. Muslim-American communities, Mr. Mueller said: 'You put that where I would say no, that it would not be our responsibility for any religion to engage in the war of ideas.'"
-- from the article above
Senator Lieberman may be appalled that "our own values of freedom and tolerance and diversity" are not being defended, but he fails to realize that he is among those who have substituted a wasteful war, squandering lives and money and war materiel and morale, military and civilian, and above all deflecting attention from an effort to comprehend the exact nature of that "ideological war" he recognizes, but cannot quite give a name to.
I can. The war is not so much against "freedom and tolerance and diversity" as Lieberman would have it. It is against Infidels, period. They can be democratic, or despotic -- it does not matter. They can be tolerant, like Lieberman himself, who no doubt prides himself on this, without thinking if toleration of those who would and have undone "toleration" wherever the writ of Islam has run, over 1350 years, makes any sense -- for clearly Lieberman is not willing to recognize that the problem is not "a handful of extremists" or those who have "misunderstood Islam." The problem is with those who have understood the texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- perfectly, and are unwilling to ignore them, because they wish to be true Muslims, faithful Muslims, doing what they are instructed to do, not only in precisely-worded clearly-understood passages in the Qur'an, but as those passages are given meaning, or glossed by the Hadith, the record of the acts and words of Muhammad, and glossed by the record of what is contained in his biography, as written down by early Muslims, from Ibn Ishaq on.
Lieberman will come to realize, one hopes, that the war in Iraq which he has so stoutly defended, so blindly supported, makes no sense. The outcome that Bush, and the Administration are pushing makes no sense. It does not weaken the Camp of Islam. It attempts, rather, to strengthen Islam by making it possible for Sunnis and Shi'a to get along, or if not get along, then to part as harmoniously as possible, and instead of supporting, not for sentimental but for geopolitical reasons, the desire of the Kurds for independence, which could have all kinds of helpful consequences in unsettling both Iran and Syria, and in offering an example farther away to other non-Arab Muslim peoples, such as the Berbers, of a successful effort by one such non-Arab Muslim group to throw off the Arab yoke.
Is Lieberman simply too much of a sentimentalist to countenance internecine warfare within the Camp of Islam, to see it as desirable rather than something horrible, something that Infidels should work to avoid? If he is indeed that way -- and the tell-tale word "diversity" suggests that he is a worshipper of the Idols of the Age -- then there is not much hope that he will come to see the Camp of Islam as one united against Infidels, though here and there divided against itself, and those divisions -- sectarian, ethnic, and economic -- can be artfully exploited by those who recognize both those divisions, and the need to weaken that Camp of Islam and not strengthen, in the name of some half-cocked policy fashioned by those ignorant of Islam and of Iraq, but in a great rush to do something, anything, something that sounded plausible, the state of Iraq, or the larger Muslim world, by helping it to avoid what some keep calling "catastrophe" and "chaos" but keep failing to add that it will be their chaos and their catastrophe.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III revealed during the hearing that the FBI has no counterideology response other than its "outreach" to Muslim-American communities so they "understand the FBI" and address "the radicalization issue," he said.
Asked whether the FBI has a responsibility to wage a battle of ideas within U.S. Muslim-American communities, Mr. Mueller said: 'You put that where I would say no, that it would not be our responsibility for any religion to engage in the war of ideas.'
The FBI's responsibility, he said, is 'to explain that once one goes over the line and it becomes not a war of ideas but a criminal offense, this is what you can expect, and to elicit the support of those in whatever religious community to assist us in assuring that those who cross that line are appropriately investigated and convicted.'
-- from the article above
Get rid of Mueller. He doesn't understand. He's not qiote up to it. Put in someone who will be a quick study, with no nonsense or sentimental pieties about him. Someone possibly poker-faced. Possibly reporting to a Security Czar who might well have as his chief adviser Stephen C(o,a)ughlin.
"'Because this is a war, but it is ultimately a war against, and with, an ideology that is inimical to our own values of freedom and tolerance and diversity,' the Connecticut independent [Senator Lieberman] said.
OK Joe, and Bob, and George and all the rest of you idiotic, naive, islamofacist enablers - go ahead and use words in your so called war.
The moslems will use bullets and c-4.
The outcome is not to hard to predict.
My fellow Aussie readers here, and fellow Commonwealth members... I wonder how many of these Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators and 'front' organisations we've got lurking in OUR countries? Perhaps we should be encouraging our intelligence and police to make a special point of examining in depth the declared 'moderate' Muslim bodies and spokespersons FIRST. Perhaps the more they smile and the nicer they sound, the more 'interfaith' events they appear at, the more suspicious we should be.
As regards the Battle of Ideas - all bona fide outright Apostates from Islam should be getting LOTS of airtime and column space, and heavy-duty personal protection. So that others who are contemplating Apostasy - as, during the Cold War, there were Russian citizens contemplating Defection - may know that they do in fact have somewhere safe to run to, that they will be heard and believed, that (once their bona fides are thoroughly checked, and established) they will be welcomed and rejoiced over.
Muslims who have publicly, deliberately and in the teeth of outright death threats, declared themselves Muslims no longer, but rather, adherents of no religion, or of another religion (as it might be Christianity - or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or the Tao, or just about anything else) are the best asset we have. Most of them seem to be pretty eager to lift the lid on Islam.
May the true and living God (who is not 'allah'), whom I believe to be the source of all truth, bless, protect and guide the likes of Daniel Shayesteh and his family, Lamin Sanneh, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, Bp Patrick Sookhdeo, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Abdul Rahman, Mr Hegazy and his wife Catarina in Egypt, and so many, many others. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled."
And may the ears of our mediapersons and political and religious leaders be opened to the warnings that these people - these defectors from the Ummah - are trying so hard to give us, about the nature of Islam, Islam, Islam.
Interestingly enough, the people who insist we engage in a "battle of ideas" have a different perspective when it comes to their own personal safety.
They have armed guards.
"Where is the new Radio Free Europe, where is the new Voice of America, to broadcast into the Islamic world against the jihad ideology?"
Robert
Is VOA really going to be effective here?
Radio Free Europe was broadcast to a people held captive and longing for freedom. Both the broadcasters and their audience had the same goals, values and ideals. They understood one another. Both were on the same side.
A new Voice of America aimed at the Islamic world would quickly be discredited as the voice of the evil infidel out to undermine Islam and destroy Muslims, wouldn't it? Terrorists aren't holding the people captive. They're heroes to many, who seek to emulate them and seek the same for their children. Will any ideas we convey mean anything to people who don't know they have been starved of knowledge? All of the ideas that would be presented would be tantamount to giving up Islam. At least that's how they will most likely be portrayed, making VOA the voice of the Great Satan.
Unlike the Eastern Europeans of decades ago, Muslims are not captives desperate for freedom. They can go anywhere and many are coming here and they are bringing jihad with them, even if they don't all make a show of it.
lol @ topic
PC base-lined lexicon...
Well, looking at it from a certain level POV as the 5th column enemy within spews, the fact that some are even MORE militant and extreme than they are, they're probably right...
...key phrase: some are even worse.
Back out here in the age-old nemesis realm called REALITYLAND, we see that 2+2 still equals 4, thus, they...are...ALL...EQUALLY...IN...LEAGUE.
End of Story.
Terrorists aren't holding the people captive. They're heroes to many, who seek to emulate them and seek the same for their children.
Truer words were never spoken.
Re: Rush & Andy McCarthy
If Rush starts to get it..lookout! he is quite inluential in the new media. If he dares to start taking pokes at Islamic ideology the other radioheads will follow.
Andy McCarthy, who is the same "blind shiek" case U.S. Attorney, and who's name gets tossed around for possible appointme to replace Gonzoles at the AG's Office, had this to say about the HLF trial and the revelations about the behind the scenes operations of the Muslim Brotherhood, et al:
"FWIW, I think this is a more transcendent problem than we may realize. A big complaint I keep hearing from friends on the Right who do not support Iraq is that the Bush administration can't seem to tell the good guys from the bad guys in the United States, so why should we be confident that the new Iraq we are trying to forge will be an ally of the United States against radical Islam — not just against al Qaeda but against the equally dangerous Shia variety? It's a very legitimate concern ... and I'm not sure I have a good answer."
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_category.cfm/cat_id/22
Andy needs a little push over the hump of to learn the answer to that question. (perhaps a little facetime with other author(s) who also contribute to the New English Review would help).
I was quite thrilled to read the statement given by Mr. Stephen Caughlin. However, after reading the various ‘civil liberties’ statements issued by our top bureaucrats, I am really depressed. They obviously believe our president’s ‘Religion of Peace’ nonsense. Unfortunately, Mr. Coughlin is a low-level civil servant who probably has little influence on policy makers. Let’s fire all of them and appoint Mr. Coughlin as both Director of Homeland Security and as Director of the FBI. This gentleman gets it!
Drip drip drip... Splash splash splash...
The buckets pass, and the water of Robert Spencer's (et al) heroic anti-Jihad begins to fill our dried out fountain of knowledge.
I suppose now we can expect a sea-change in the way the various government depts deal with these subversive groups...
...(sarcasm in case anyone missed it)....
Al Gore and or John Kerry would not have done anything (jut like clinton).
In view of the tangled relationship of "mainstream" Muslim groups with radical ones, as well as the fact that there is not much in the way of countervailing ideas in the Infidel camp, probably because very little about Islam is understood, I think that Dan Pipes's call to better separate the Islamists from others is impossible from a practical point of view.
In addition, Pipes has an article in which he claims that conservatives are divided between those who want to ban Islam, and those who think the current radicalism is a temporary aberation, which is what he seems to think.
The entire government is not oriented towards Sun Tzu's principles, especially the first one. There are a lot of reasons why this is so, and not one of those reasons enjoys prominence over the others. Critics of the Bush administration like to pin the close relationship with the Saudis on the President and his advisers. That certainly plays a role in determining what is "out of bounds" and not optional for discussion. The right side of the political spectrum likes to point towards the secular character of our elites, who have absolutely no interest in religion or Islamic scripture whatsoever. Our academic elites will not deign to read Islamic scripture, because they are of the opinion that their "experts" provide them with the "right answers."
The FBI is, sadly, not configured to wage ideological warfare on our behalf. Also, the Justice Department is comprised of elite lawyers who themselves are the products of the kind of education in the prestigious universities which are dominated by people who accuse Robert of "Islamophobia" and "promotion of hatred."
The entire elite strata of our country, and of the rest of the West, keeps hitting the snooze button.
How preposterous is the current FBI approach? Just imagine if the FBI dealt with the Communist threat in the 1930's, 40's & 50's the same way:
FBI Director J Edgar Hoover revealed during the hearing that the FBI has no counterideology response other than its "outreach" to communists so they "understand the FBI" and address "the radicalization issue," he said.
Asked whether the FBI has a responsibility to wage a battle of ideas within U.S. communist organizations, Mr. Hoover said: "You put that where I would say no, that it would not be our responsibility to engage in the war of ideas."
The FBI's responsibility, he said, is "to explain that once one goes over the line and it becomes not a war of ideas but a criminal offense, this is what you can expect, and to elicit the support of their Fellow Travelers to assist us in assuring that those who cross that line are appropriately investigated and convicted."
I am waiting for CAIR to come out and say this was an attack by the right-wing Islamaphobes, which all the mainstream media outlets will allow them to say on their TV and radio networks without even the hint of a counter-point being allowed by one of the said Islamaphobes.
Well, what are the choices we have? Last check, there were 20 million (or so) Muslims in Europe and 2 million (or so) Muslims in American (not counting CAIR's ridiculous 6-7 million claim). Look at the debate concerning illegal immigration down South, do you think the government is going to deport 12 million Hispanic fence-hoppers? Not bloody likely. Now look at the response to the September 11th anti-Islamic rally in Brussels. People are starting to back off because they don't want to "end up like Prim Fortuyn".
I was telling my mum about what happened this past week in Brussels, and I told her that I wanted one of those t-shirts with the X over a picture of a mosque. She said "no you don't". Her argument was that an angry Muslim would slice my throat if they saw me wearing that t-shirt in public. Granted, a Muslim from St Catherines (forty miles away) is serving time in a Pennsylvania prison for being involved in a terrorist plot, we honestly don't have that many Muslims around here. In the bloody center of North America, people are that afraid of the dreaded "Muslim reaction".
So where does that leave us? At least the goverment was able to act against Nazism (eventually) and Communism throughout the Cold War, but how are we going to fight Islam in the 21st Century? We don't even known what the end goal is; do we destroy Islam, do we contain it, or do we accept it? If we accept Muslim communities within our borders, we will have to permanently live with jihad, to some degree or another. It doesn't matter if it's an old-man ranting and raving on a street corner or the organized gang rapes occurring throughout Europe right now. That's what you get when you choose to permanently accept Muslims among you (something they're not supposed to do themselves). You will have good years and you will have bad years, but brother, pray to G-d they don't ever form a majority, or you're buggered. If you choose to contain Islam you can try and contain Muslim communities within your borders, but that does not diminish the risk facing your society and surely it would be bloody costly (and annoying, as it is today) to constantly maintain a high level of defense against your own citizens. Doesn't make much sense to me. But you can choose to expel Muslims from within your borders (excluding the elderly who can't reproduce and who are generally moderate compared to their mutant offspring, and those who renounce Islam and become secular) and then set a guard along the international border of the Ummah. An international treaty drawing modern forces from all over the world (especially from those nations which are located along the border with the Ummah) would be able to pose enough of a threat to the Islamic world. The threat of a nuclear attack from us, coupled with modern forces stationed along the impoverished borders of the Ummah would be able to contain the Islamic jihad in theory, provided that we (the world) could maintain the will power to use our collective force against the Ummah over several centuries (until luck prevails and Muslims renounce their faith?). But democracies are notoriously bad when (historically) it has been necessary to carry out such responsibilities, usually because of in-fighting in the elite-political class or voter fatigue. If it weren't for Regan, would we have still won the Cold War? So we have a choice between spending billions of dollars on protecting non-Muslim citizens (i.e. us) from Muslim "citizens" or carrying out a containment policy, the responsibilities of which, have a poor track record of being carried out in the Western world. Or we could (in theory) destroy Islam as we did with Nazism and Communism.
Those are the choices we have. Islam is Islam, we have large immigrant communities within our borders, inhabited by excitable people who refuse to assimilate (their children end up being more radical than their parents). We have political and intellectual white-washing and media denial. Knowledge of Islam is still low and Westerners aren't fighting back in an effective way (i.e. in Iraq largely due to the ridiculous Bush doctrine) and even in Afghanistan (the Taliban is just moving south into Pakistan, and each bombing is being taking as a 'public relations' defeat against NATO). So unless something happens soon, our choices remain the same. But they're on the shelf gathering dust.
Late night History Channel. In Sparta, only two kinds of people got tombstones:
Men who died in battle; and
Women who died in childbirth.
Before a Spartan male’s eighteenth birthday, he had to pass a test, which consisted of sneaking up and strangling a Helot (slave) without anybody knowing. If the Helot made enough noise for someone to hear in the process of being killed, the Spartan candidate was severely punished.
Sparta lasted around seven hundred years and defended our ancestors to the death against ancient Persian visions.
---
The FBI's responsibility, he said, is "to explain that once one goes over the line and it becomes not a war of ideas but a criminal offense, this is what you can expect, and to elicit the support of those in whatever religious community to assist us in assuring that those who cross that line are appropriately investigated and convicted."
-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III
“The sense of responsibility for doing a job right seems to be declining. In fact, the phrase "I am not responsible" has become a standard response in our society to complaints on a job poorly done. This response is a semantic error. Generally what person means is: "I cannot be held legally liable." Yet, from a moral or ethical point of view, the person who disclaims responsibility is correct: by taking this way out he is truly not responsible; he is irresponsible.”
-Hyman Rickover
The First American Republic is on 230 years…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots
Despite being a dittohead myself on non-Islamic matters, I'd rather let you all check out for yourselves whether Rush is getting it - doesn't look like it to me.
Since the link above could expire over time, here is the transcript
OK, I’ll bite:
“This question of moderate Muslims, it's a challenging thing…” -RL
Drip #1
“The official position of the US government back then was that there was a fringe militant extremist Islamism, and that there were moderates, and the official position of the US government was Islam is moderate.” –AM, as quoted by RL
Drip #2
“So I'm going to take what I know that he has said in speeches, and I'm going to take what he has written, and I'm going to go to the Koran, and I'm going to find where he is exaggerating." And he couldn't find it. Everything that the blind sheik said was in the Koran.” –AM, as quoted by RL
Drip #3
Blather, blather, that Shi’ite man arguing that our intervention in Iraq is good…
-Party Line
I’m not a Rush defender, but he has influence. This was an unprovoked discussion. The power structure speak in code these days. The best way to get a point across without accountability is to quote others. Rush still relishes his invitations to the White House after all.
Groundwork.
pez - so you want America, Australia, England, Canada, etc, to become murderous pagan Spartans in order to defeat the Jihad? Frankly, there's a tone in some of your posts that worries me. You really do seem to hanker for a pure heroic Pagan Republic, when Noble Men (i.e. people like yourself?) ruled unquestioned as is their Right and Women and Slave Men (most of the population who of course are beneath contempt, fit only to be ruled by their Betters) were firmly kept in their places/ sarc/
Sparta exposed their newborn babies to test their 'fitness' and practised infanticide - sorry, mate, I'm a woman and a mother and I'm GLAD Sparta is no more. (I'm glad, too, that in the modern Western world women SURVIVE childbirth).
Sparta had a culture of cold cruelty, spiritual and poetic barrenness and military supremacism that, frankly, revolts me. They lived off slaves. SLAVES whom, to judge by your charming little story about the Spartan test of manhood, they treated like animals - or like Muslims treat dhimmis... Do you propose to bring THAT test back? Tell college kids to sneak into the ghetto or the trailer park and prove they're Real Warriors by quietly strangling one of the Untermenschen?
OK, the Spartans fought off the Persians. I'll thank them for that. (Though I'll also recall that those decadent artistic music-loving philosophical argumentative Athenians ALSO defeated the Persians, in a naval engagement, though gravely outnumbered). But I have absolutely no desire to imitate the Spartans. I don't see their society as a healthy role model. Nor, for that matter, would I ever want to recreate pagan Athens, or pagan Rome, living off slaves and throwing out girl babies onto the rubbish tip - and crucifying people, such as a certain irritating Jewish rabbi who doesn't seem to have had very much in the way of property.
I choose Sinai, and Jerusalem, Moses and Jesus, over Athens and Rome, any day; I choose YHWH, who is neither Apollo nor Dionysius and refuses to fit neatly into the domain of either.
My great-great-uncle was an ambulance officer at Gallipoli. I've read his diary. He was just as brave as any Spartan on the field of battle - but off the battlefield, and in ordinary life, a loving, gentle, intelligent Christian man, who passed most of his life as a humble schoolteacher. As we face the Jihad, I'd much rather remember people like him, than idolise the Spartans.
Let's remember Elizabeth I's navy fighting off the Armada, or the Knights of St John at Malta, or Jan Sobieski outside Vienna in 1683; or the young airmen in the Battle of Britain, many of them Christians; or the whole town and people of Malta holding off the German onslaught together; or the Rats of Tobruk (look them up) or Israel in 1948 and 1967 and 1973, fighting and winning against overwhelming odds, and without sacrificing their humanity to do it.
The Israelis have had perforce to become a warrior society. But they are not Sparta, and never will be, because they are the House of Israel. They don't expose their babies in order to find out which ones are 'fittest' - they raise them all, even the weakest, the handicapped ones. They don't cull their girls. They weep at their soldiers' funerals and would much prefer that the young men had lived - they don't worship war as such, or death in battle. Their society though at war is saturated with the arts of peace: with music, art, poetry, dance, song, science and intellect. And, long ago, King David the Hebrew warrior was at the same time a poet - and the truth is, no Spartan, no Roman, no Athenian EVER wrote anything to match the Psalms.
No. I do not think it is necessary for us to return to Greco-Roman paganism, nor to the social structures and attitudes it produced and legitimised, in order to defeat those whom Oriana Fallaci called 'the sons of allah'.
You guys are being unfair to the (hapless) FBI Director Mueller. It is preposterous to ask the FBI director if his agency is involved in a "battle of ideas" with what is presently termed a "great religion" by POTUS. He should have challenged the premise of the question or asked for clarification.
"Frozen and unable to react, like a deer in the headlights, by pcmcism."--tgusa
That's where a lot of us are. If we aren't shackled by our own PC-suicide wishes, many of us still drag the PC ball and chain on our legs, in order to keep our jobs, mollify our friends, etc.
No, we'll never convince our Mohammedan foes that we (America) are not the Great Satan, and it wouldn't mean doodley squat, if we did. If we were all righteous, in our own ways, we would still be at war with them because we aren't righteous in their way.
What does matter is convincing ourselves, as a nation, that we aren't the Great Satan. I don't know if it can be done. I don't want to sound like a defeatist, but I really don't know.
We need something to replace PC, as the idol of the age. We need something that would not only be better, but would also make America proud to be America, again.
Sparta lasted around seven hundred years and defended our ancestors to the death against ancient Persian visions.
post by Pez
Like any empire, Persia has a mixed record. It's not all bad and the Spartan empire, while it may have been noble, didn't allow for individual freedom. People served the state. Young boys were taken away from their families and raised as soldiers. It was highly militaristic.
The Persian empire that coexisted with Sparta was almost seven centuries before Mohammed. The same empire that fought the Spartans also fought the Babylonians and then released Jews from captivity in Babylon, allowing them to return to their homes after decades of exile.
Allow me to correct myself. The Jews were released from captivity about six centuries before Christ was born, and about 13 centuries before Mohammed.
We can either drop this "outreach" BS and start shutting down the madrassas and investigating mosques, or we can all look forward to the gradual implementation of Sharia and dominance of the "superior" religion.