Pipes: Obama's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism "calls for appeasing terrorists"

Please bear in mind that Brennan and people like him are our employees, they can be replaced.

Let's hope that not too much damage is suffered before this can be achieved.

Hey it's "legitimate needs and ordinary grievences"

What a crock.

Barry never met a tinpot dictator he did not envy.

He didn't meet a rep of islam that he is not willing to bow down to .

Aint ya proud to having him represent the free world ?

Why so few press conferences these days? Why no opportunities to ask our new Administration what their objectives and strategies are and open themselves for comments and criticism?

We only get barry's face and scripted blather. A shame, a sham.

What has Barrack's appeasement program really gained? BO had his pants pulled down by Chaves recently. BO reminds me of a whimpy gangster. He holds the same ideology as Chaves and the leftist dictators like him but can't muster the charisma. I'm sure the Jihadists really care how Barrack and his cronies define them. To them he's a softy who talks loudly but carries no stick.

Let the stupid State Department define them as they wish. The fact is the Jihadists:

1) Believe that they represent the true nature of Islam.

2) They are devout in their belief and intent on establishing the law of Islam throughout the world.

3) They derive their intent out of the texts of Islam. (Would Mr. Brennan care to debate them?)

4) Mr. Brennan's policy of appeasement will not make America safer from them but his refusal to define them will make America more likely to suffer from their attacks.

5) Does Mr. Brennan believe they represent ordinary Muslims and are thus justified in their actions? (i.e Hitler and his henchmen were justified in their horrible acts because what was done to the German's after World War I).

This is logic possesed by idiots, not leaders.

With the recent placements by Napolitano and Obama of devout followers of this destructive force into positions of influence within Homeland Security:

Arif Alikhan, Asst. Secretary of Policy Source for Homeland Security

and

Syrian, Kareem Shora, ADC National executive director member of Homalnd Security Advisory Council

. . .expect appeasement to reach all new heights.

I hate to admit I've become so pessimistic, but I've accepted that there will be at least one severe terrorist attack on US soil because of Obama and his treasonous misfits.

Whether it takes the form of a Mumbai/Beslan style attack or a WMD attack, I have no idea. What's clear is that the Obama administration has no idea what they're dealing with or what they're doing. As far as I can tell the Obama administration's policy consists appeasement, naivety, ignorance, and collusion.

FWIW, start preparing-buy food, medicine, have cash on hand for six months to a year, develop a communications and strategy plan for you and your family, not to mention buy a firearm and start training to defend yourself.

So, does Mr. Brennan see the existence of non-Muslims as one of the "legitimate" grievances of the terrorists? Or, for a more "modest" goal of the jihadis, does our living under a law other than Sharia constitute a "legitimate" grievance of the terrorists? How about my belief that Muhammad--if Christoph Luxenberg's work is incorrect--was a false prophet?

JamestheFin, I'm afraid that oue current elite can't wake up unless they personally are the targets of an attack. I teach my students that if they can't learn from my colleagues and me, they'll learn from the roughest, meanest, nastiest teacher there is--Mr. Experience, the guy whose job it is to teach those who won't listen to their elders or read a book.

How is it BO chooses these people? This guy is an idiot. GWB may have been naive on 9-11, but he at least fought back.

Islam has been at war with us since Mohamed invented it in the seventh century. How much evidence do we need to believe that? Just look in a good history book!

IN November 2008 an article was put up here at JW from another publication (Investor’s Business Daily) which deplored the fact that John Brennan had to remove himself from consideration as a possible director of the CIA because of criticism of his role in approving, or at least not sufficiently disapproving, certain techniques used by those entrusted with the task of making this country less vulnerable to Muslim terrorism.
That article can be found here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/023696.php.

Under that same article, I posted a dissent, suggesting that there were things about Brennan’s attitude and preparation that a close reading of some of his statements – Reuben Brower, thou shouldst be living at this hour! – revealed.
Here I am re-posting those nine-month old reservations:

“This is a case of someone possibly being opposed for the wrong reasons, and kept out for the wrong reasons, but there are other aspects of John Brennan's mental preparation for the post -- including his understanding of both the Islamic Republic of Iran and the role of Hezbollah in Lebanon-- that may be insufficient for one of the main tasks at hand for a head of the C.I.A., which is to grasp, in both its immutable, inculcated goal, and in its shape-shifting and vaied instruments, and in the triumphalism of Islam that must never be fed, for the satisfying of Muslim demands, no matter how plausibly presented (just push Israel back to the 1949 Armistice Lines, just give us Kashmir for Muslim rule, just allow the Shari'a as an alternative legal system in Great Britain, just allow the wearing of the hijab in the schools of the French laic state, just force Spain to give up Meilia and Ceuta, just make the Danish and Dutch governments promise to punish those who dare to exhibit "islamophobia" in their countries, just do this, and just do that), will always whet, and never sate, Muslim appetites.

An article published by Brennan earlier this year makes one realize that someone can have made all the right enemies (those offended by Brennan's sobriety on interrogation methods), and yet upon further inspection, still exhibit signs -- so obvious all over official Washington -- of still not having grasped the full nature of Islam, or of rulers and peoples in societies suffused with Islam, where those rulers and peoples take that Islam fully to heart. It is not true that it makes sense to support, or at least not to oppose, Hezbollah's attempt to enforce its will in Lebanon, and it is not true that a "deal" can be struck with the Islamic Republic of Iran, as even the French will now warn, after years and years of patient negotiations with the deeply deceptive, and implacably malevolent, determined-to-acquire-nuclear-weapons-at-all-costs chiliastic rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Here's a bit more on that side of Brennan:
"Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic reports that John Brennan is likely to head the CIA. See my earlier posting on Brennan below.

John Brennan, who heads the Obama team managing the transition process for the intelligence community, is rumored to be Obama's pick to head the CIA. Brennan published a long article on Iran in July 2008, expressing a benign view of the Islamic Republic and harsh criticism of U.S. policies that he believes have driven Iran in the wrong direction. Excerpts follow:
"Notwithstanding the fiery rhetoric coming from Iranian officials such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian theocracy has made much more limited use of terrorism over the past decade than it did in the first twenty years of its reign....Although it would represent a significant act of domestic political courage, U.S. national security would be best served if Washington publicly acknowledged and explored the roots of this shift in Iranian state support for terrorist activities....While it may serve some narrow political agendas to lump together a wide variety of Iranian policies and actions that are antithetical to U.S. policy aims under the rubric of state-sponsored terrorism, U.S. strategic interests require a more nuanced analysis of and less absolutist approach to this problem....Instead of pursuing a nuanced strategy that could have allowed flexibility in U.S. policy, the Bush administration regrettably opted to conduct its activities under the overarching banner of "The Global War on Terrorism" and declared it would make no distinction between terrorist operatives and their state sponsors....Despite a December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that assessed "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program," the administration indicated no interest in easing the pressure on Iran (National Intelligence Council 2007)....The bellicose volleys coming from the chief spokesmen of both the American and Iranian governments have served to widen the rift that exists between the two countries and to make constructive engagement virtually impossible in the current climate...An improvement in U.S.-Iranian relations will not take place overnight, and the new U.S. administration must be willing to exercise strategic patience....It would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence....The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization—as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hezbollah primarily as a pawn of Tehran—is to increase Hezbollah's stake in Lebanon's struggling democratic processes."
From: "The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence," by John Brennan, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 618, No. 1, 168-179 (2008) http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/618/1/168
_________________________

If John Brennan has such a strange understanding of Iran, does not grasp the nature of that regime, cannot understand what the attainment of nuclear arms by the Islamic Republic of Iran would mean for the Western world, and also for much of the Muslim world, and what it would mean to the cause of those Iranians, inside andoutside Iran, hoping to undo the Islamic Republic, then he should be kept as far from the corridors of power as possible. Let Kierostami, let Taheri, let Aziz Nafisi, somehow get through to those advising Obama so as to head off the possible appointment of Brennan as head of the C.I.A..
That assumes that the quote above is representative. It appeared in an article published not five years ago, but this year. It appears from the excerpt that Brennan apparently thinks that because, he argues, Iranian support for terrorism has, over the last decade, as compared to the first twenty years of the Khomeini regime, waned (apparently the Statute of Moral Limitations has run out on those who blew up the nearly 300 Marines in Beirut or nearly 100 people working in a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires), this must mean that Iran is not a threat, because even as Brennan appears to recognize that "terror" is not the only (and not even the main) weapon of Jihad (a word he does not use), he appears to think that some kind of diplomatic maneuvering can continue to go on, while the clock ticks, and the centrifuges whirl, and the components are ever closer to being composed into a bomb, or two, or five.

The next C.I.A. director must understand that the duty of Jihad, or the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, is not tangential but central to Islam, a Total Belief-System that contains a politics and a geopolitics, and that inculcates the idea, in Believers, that the world is divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, Believers and Infidels, and between the two a state of permanent war (though not always open warfare) must exist. And the instruments of Jihad, used in the most important theatre of that war at present, include not only terrorism, which gets exclusive attention, but also deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

Brennan's excerpt above implies a lack of seeing things, of seeing them feelingly, of grasping the nature, and the immediacy of the threat that acquisition of even a few nuclear weapons by the Islamic Republic of Iran would pose, to the Western world and its oil supplies, and also a mortal threat to Israel, whose existence and safety is important to the moral survival of the West.

The excerpts offered above, in their chilling naivete about the chiliasm of the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on the assumption that the whole wide world consists -- it does not -- of "rational actors" (and from such behaviorial economists as Dan Ariely. one has come to understand that the figure held up as the quintessential rational actor, American homo economicus, is not really a creature of reason alone) but of those moved by calculations economists of the traditional school might define as "irrational." But Islam encourages irrationality, discourages skeptical inquiry; insists that "slaves of Allah" must not question this or question that, for Allah Knows Best.
Why would those raised since birth, and surrounded by those similarly raised since birth, in societies suffused with Islam, as dutiful "slaves of Allah," believers in a Total Belief-System that, as one can see from reading Khomeini (reading, say, his advice on to whom islamically to serve the meat of the animal with which, when it was alive, you had sexual congress), results in a world that does not, morally, correspond to ours, and that holds up as The Perfect Man (uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil) a man who revelled in murderous attacks on all those who did not submit to him.

The next director of the C.I.A. should know about, has to have studied, has to have taken in the texts, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics, of Islam. Or if such a person does not exist in the dizzying heights of official Washington, then the next best pick would be someone who at least senses that this is what he, and others, have to find out about, and not deny or refuse to learn about something because what it would reveal would be so deeply unsettling, and require such a rethinking of current strategies, and even long-held pieties or Idols of the Age, as to seem to present the kind of practical difficulties formulaically described as "insuperable." Judging by the ex-ungue-leonem excerpt from John Brennan above, he may not be such a person. His remarks on Iran do not reveal someone who has grasped the scope, and duration, of the world-wide war of self-defense (recognized by many or not,) by all Infidels, against those who pursue the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, Brennan looks as if he might be in the line of Scowcroft and Brzezinski.

One hopes not. For Scowcroft and Brzezinski have long been known for their palpable want of sympathy for Israel, and their belief, or at least their pretense of believing, that if Israel is pressured, is thrown to the Arab wolves, then the Arab Muslims will be our friends, when in fact such pressure and such feeding will merely whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites, Arab triumphalism, and those appetites and that triumphalism are not limited to a scarcely-discernible strip of land on the eastern Mediterranean. Scowcroft may even be an agent of various Muslim states; he has been careful not to reveal how much money, and from whom, he has received since putting out his shingle with Kissinger Associates. And Brzezinski is the man who helped Carter lose Iran, at a time when more American resoluteness might have rescued from Khomeini, whose takeover was not inevitable. Even if the Shah was vainglorious and stupid, he was, compared to what followed, practically Winston Churchill. Neither Brzezinski nor Scowcroft has shown any signs of thinking about Islam as an ideology (and why should they, when like so many in official Washington that would require study, and the habit of study has, in the hectic vacancy of jostling for position and influence, been lost by so many).

And a desire for a prompt American withdrawal, is not enough. That desire must be prompted by the right reason, that is a desire not to diminish, but rather to allow to reappear where temporarily suppressed by American power and lavish aid, ethnic and sectarian rivalries and hostilities, in Iraq and then elsewhere in Dar al-Islam. It is disturbing to see that Brennan shows, in his writing above, a willingness to ignore or minimize the mortal threat to Israel. One hopes, at least, that in his case this seeming incomprehension of the threat to Israel is not an indifference to it, of the kind exhibited by the scowcrofts and the brzezinskis, an indifference that, some will maintain, and with reason, can only be explained as a symptom of a well-known, never-to-be-eradicated, pathological condition. And that pathological condition is not always recognized, when it appears in its forme fruste, especially by those who, being innocently immune themselves, find it hard to believe that others are not equally impervious.

But Brennan has now taken himself out of the running. Far more worrisome, at this point, is the apparent felt need of Barack Obama to pick some gruff, rough, tough, military man - the rougher, the gruffer, the tougher the better-- on the assumption that this will give him street cred where he thinks, or his advisers think, he may need it, when the street in question is the one that runs in the mind from the White House to Congress, and then to the Pentagon.
Apparently the rough, tough, gruff National Security Adviser who is being considered is a Marine, General James Jones, former NATO Commander. But what is so disturbing about that possible appointment deserves a post, an article, a little tribute of its own."
[Posted by: Hugh at November 28, 2008 9:46 AM]

Satan incarnate meets Pollyanna the Glad Girl.

Why does Brennan think that any Muslim would let a kaffir like him determine the legitimacy of anything?

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think. (Adolf Hitler).

How far more unfortunate for people when many of them do think, but are still forced to endure the paradox of being ruled by others who claim to be expert, who claim to know what's what -- that is, people who administer their government and don't think.

Thanks to all who have posted their support and concern for my well-being in my future planned endevours in the ‘Stan. I am only scheduled to deploy next year no sooner than Aug 2010, and will be training until then. I shall continue to log in and post when I can and extremely appreciate the cyber-support of fellow posters. So, please, no need to offer any more concerns or queries about my person until I actually deploy. At this point, with the stats from my trade and deployment history, I have a greater chance of dying from cancer than shuffling off in the sand box through misadventure. (I do plan to keep a journal for some type of post deployment publication, hopefully it’ll be good enough to get a certain publisher on board so I can donate half the profit to my current favourite charity – the Ezra Levant defence fund.

Now, to the subject at hand. The theme of this article has been brewing on JW prior to this page. Working through lunch to catch up I made myself just enough time to print the article so I could take it out to the smoking area to decompress before I tackled the afternoon training with my underlings.

But the printer decided to miss feed in the humidity, and by the time I go the infernal machine fixed, the article printed, and my ass to the smoke pit, I had barely five minutes to suck on a butt and walk back into the training area to my awaiting students.

They all saw me, pages in hand, as I leaned over a tool box, attentive to their own interaction, answering their questions, yet reading on as I “officially” still had a couple of minutes until we started training.

I reached the end of the article, crumpled the two pages, one in each hand, and tossed them in the trash. Mentally, I only felt the normal subsurface anger over the idiotic leftist interpretation of mankind’s greatest threat, and on the surface, fully compartmentalized as I looked up at my students and ushered them on to their next phase.

To switch from the mental journey of interpreting the written word to a completely unrelated interaction, and not betray the magnitude of emotion that the stories posted on JW should elicit on the uninitiated democratic majority, is a feat that I believe most repeat JW posters unknowingly do in their everyday lives.

We read about the atrocities against humanity and civilization perpetrated in the name of islam everyday, and gaze in wonder at the MSMs who refuse to carry these stories, like one gazes at an insane person doing what they do repeatedly because they can’t help themselves – because they are as Forest Gump said, “Stupid is as …” And yet, in the midst of all the insanity, we carry on with our lives, hoping that what we do will make a tiny difference in the destruction of “Jihad,” in the same way humanity managed to destroy cannibalism.

At the end of our training session, the students carried out their duties and emptied the trash. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw the one student tasked to replace the garbage bag retrieve one of my crumpled pages, unfurl it and try to read some of the content. In this current age of sound bites and ideas only digested in mall paragraphs, the student did not gaze at the page very long. In fact, seeing as there was more than a fortune cookie’s worth of information on it, the student found nothing of interest and simply through it back in the trash.

Did I expect more? Did you? The truth is our information age is being segregated to exclude debate, and exposure to difficult issues, which might cause debate. Go back 20 years and such trash (the crumpled article tossed away by a supervisor in plain view of subordinates) would have been digested by information hungry students, but now-a-days, everything is a google-crack-berry away from mental digestion. Unfortunately, none of my students, and I mean NONE of my students can tell the difference between a liberal or conservative slant to essence of a story, nor to they care.

This story “means” something to very few, and this sad reality is due to the layered lies, which have been allowed to become accepted truths in the short memory span of the new instant information age.

If the jihadists had their way, and finally managed to turn off all the lights, bringing us all closer to Allah in the purely fundamentally jihad-derived medieval paradise they all seek, the information starved masses would quickly learn the truth of islam. But until then, there’s always Youtube.

Read that post just above. Read it carefully. It was written with care.

KaffirKanuck.

The Canadian mothers, and sisters, and wives whose menfolk are being trained by you, are fortunate.

Keep trying. Just keep trying. *Something* may sink in.

In the meantime - maybe poetry will work better than argument.

I suggest you acquire a nice paperback of Rudyard Kipling's un-pc military poems. Hunt through it to find the ones that describe vividly and briefly what it is like to go up against jihad raiders in the sharia-poisoned societies that are known to us as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Share with your soldiers, at opportune moments, from Kipling, shocking verses such as this - "When you're flung from your horse on Afghanistan's plains/ and the women come out to cut up what remains/ just seize your revolver and blow out your brains/ and go to your God like a soldier".

Every soldier who has been in Afghanistan and/ or Iraq and has heard about (or watched) beheading videos, or come upon beheaded and mutilated corpses, and has seen how Muslims normally behave toward captive Infidels, may find - with a jolt - that Kipling has articulated his own deepest fears. And such a soldier may then, imaginatively, be open to further instruction.

If there were a billion Satanists, would Obama and his idiots set up an outreach office for them?

Or a billion Aryan Nation "Christian Identity" types. Would the White House initiate a program to mollify such whack jobs?

What is different about Islam?

It preaches the same kind of terror, tyranny, intolerance and contempt for anyone who does not bow to its bigotry.

The airheaded governmental and media and academic whitewash of this cruel, retrograde deathcult is pathetic and nauseating.

And suicidally stupid.

The paralyzing fear shown by our putative "leaders" about learning that Islam is not a normal religion endangers the world.

How many more will have to die before their blood is smelling salts sufficient to rouse the Denialists?

I don't doubt that Obama knows the true meaning of jihad but doesn't care.

This “ inner moral struggle” meaning of jihad is not only dismissed by Robert Spencer & his expert colleagues but by no less an authority than Bernard Lewis as a recent PR job some modern Muslims use “When addressing the outside world”.

He writes on Pg 31 of his book The Crisis of Islam that

“The overwhelming majority of early authorities, citing the relevant passages in the Qur’an, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad in military terms.” ….

“For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power”,

“The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule.”

Obama, I suspect, may want the Muslim world to think of him as a secret Muslim of some mild sort - which at heart he might be.

I don't doubt that Obama knows the true meaning of jihad but doesn't care.

This “ inner moral struggle” meaning of jihad is not only dismissed by Robert Spencer & his expert colleagues but by no less an authority than Bernard Lewis as a recent PR job some modern Muslims use “When addressing the outside world”.

He writes on Pg 31 of his book The Crisis of Islam that

“The overwhelming majority of early authorities, citing the relevant passages in the Qur’an, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad in military terms.” ….

“For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power”,

“The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule.”

Obama, I suspect, may want the Muslim world to think of him as a secret Muslim of some mild sort - which at heart he might be.