CIA’s counterterrorism chief is convert to Islam

He is a “collection of contradictions,” says the WaPo. He “presides over a campaign that has killed thousands of Islamist militants and angered millions of Muslims, but he is himself a convert to Islam.” He converted to Islam to get married (Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man) and “is not demonstrably observant,” but “he is known to clutch a strand of prayer beads.”

It is impossible to tell from this how serious he is about Islam. The Washington Post, of course, follows the mainstream media line that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, and so takes for granted that “Roger” has no loyalty issues, and proffers the drone campaign and the killing of bin Laden as proof. There is no exploration in the Post article of the implications of Roger’s believing in the same religion that jihadists point to as inspiring and motivating their hatred of America and desire to war against it. There is no questioning him about the contradiction, or apparent contradiction, between his drone strikes and campaign against bin Laden, and his Islamic faith. No one thinks to ask him or dares ask him if he differs with bin Laden in tactics only, but not in overall goal. Everyone takes for granted that because Islam is a Religion of Peace, Roger’s beliefs and values should not be subject to any scrutiny of any kind. His loyalty is beyond question. Even to ask Roger how his understanding of Islam differs from that of the Islamic jihadists against whom he is conducting a kind of war would be “Islamophobic.”

The question is this: some might liken Roger to a top American official joining the Nazi Party during World War II. Others would liken Roger to a top American official marrying a German immigrant during World War II, and coming under unjust suspicion as a result. German Americans, of course, could oppose and fight against National Socialism unequivocally, without any lingering allegiance to it; Muslims who profess to reject and abhor Islamic terrorism, however, still profess belief in a book and a prophet that have inspired Islamic violence and supremacism worldwide, even among believers who have no institutional connection to al-Qaeda or any other jihad group.

Whatever the truth may be in Roger’s particular case, there is no doubt of one thing: if Islamic supremacists wanted to subvert the U.S. defense against jihad terror, they couldn’t do it more easily than by turning someone in a position like Roger’s. The worst part of this story is that no one is even examining that as a possibility, for to do so would go against all the dogmas and pieties of the Washington establishment.

“At CIA, a convert to Islam leads the terrorism hunt,” by Greg Miller in the Washington Post, March 24:

For every cloud of smoke that follows a CIA drone strike in Pakistan, dozens of smaller plumes can be traced to a gaunt figure standing in a courtyard near the center of the agency”s Langley campus in Virginia.

The man with the nicotine habit is in his late 50s, with stubble on his face and the dark-suited wardrobe of an undertaker. As chief of the CIA”s Counterterrorism Center for the past six years, he has functioned in a funereal capacity for al-Qaeda.

Roger, which is the first name of his cover identity, may be the most consequential but least visible national security official in Washington “” the principal architect of the CIA”s drone campaign and the leader of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. In many ways, he has also been the driving force of the Obama administration’s embrace of targeted killing as a centerpiece of its counterterrorism efforts.

Colleagues describe Roger as a collection of contradictions. A chain-smoker who spends countless hours on a treadmill. Notoriously surly yet able to win over enough support from subordinates and bosses to hold on to his job. He presides over a campaign that has killed thousands of Islamist militants and angered millions of Muslims, but he is himself a convert to Islam….

He also married a Muslim woman he met abroad, prompting his conversion to Islam. Colleagues said he doesn’t shy away from mentioning his religion but is not demonstrably observant. There is no prayer rug in his office, officials said, although he is known to clutch a strand of prayer beads….

Along the way, he has clashed with high-ranking figures, including David H. Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, who at times objected to the CIA”s more pessimistic assessments of those wars. Former CIA officials said the two had to patch over their differences when Petraeus became CIA director.

“No officer in the agency has been more relentless, focused, or committed to the fight against al-Qaeda than has the chief of the Counterterrorism Center,” Petraeus said in a statement provided to The Post….

Given his attention to operational detail, Roger is seen by some as culpable for one of the agency”s most tragic events “” the deaths of seven CIA employees at the hands of a suicide bomber who was invited to a meeting at a CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan, in December 2009.

An internal review concluded that the assailant, a Jordanian double-agent who promised breakthrough intelligence on al-Qaeda leaders, had not been fully vetted, and it cited failures of “management oversight.” But neither Roger nor other senior officers were mentioned by name….

“˜A new flavor of activity”

But current and former senior U.S. intelligence officials said it is no accident that Roger’s tenure has coincided with a remarkably rapid disintegration of al-Qaeda “” and the killing of bin Laden last year.

When Michael V. Hayden became CIA director in May 2006, Roger began laying the groundwork for an escalation of the drone campaign. Over a period of months, the CTC chief used regular meetings with the director to make the case that intermittent strikes were allowing al-Qaeda to recover and would never destroy the threat….

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    One thing is for certain: Roger is very serious about his Islamic wife; and his Islamic wife seriously feared the horrible consequences from family and friends if she married an infidel.

  2. says

    ” He married a Muslim woman. .which prompted his conversion. ” . . Well her family must have insisted on it, as per Sharia. Her family must have some clout. I wonder which oil-dynasty she comes fr6.

  3. says

    Is this for real?? I can’t believe it – sooner or later Mo/allah will get to him and then we will face the consequences of having a Muslim in this position.

  4. says

    Lame attemp at whitewashing pedohammed’s ideology, concetrating on this dude Roger. how about concentrationg on substantial stuff? like the systematic abuses against non-muslims in any country with a muslim majority, instead of saying or implying that Islam only has a handful of extremists and isn’t intrinsically an intolerant, hateful and bigoted ideology. That’s just dishonest, delusional and ridiculous.

  5. says

    FOR ISLAM TO TAKE OVER it needs to portray itself as not a threat. Islam needs a bogey-man that it can kill to prove that it is okay for Islam to be in charge. That bogey-man is al-Qaeda. Roger can help pave the way for an Islamic takeover by being (having) a Muslim in charge of taking out al-Qaeda. The problem is that if Islam really does take over, then the true face of Islam will finally show. Roger is likely at the top tier of the Stealth Jihad. The depth of infiltration into our country is astounding and horrifying.

  6. says

    A CIA dude is a convert to Islam, ok now let’s forget about Islam being inherently a violent, intolerant ideology. Great job WaPo!(not really).

    You know who is a muslim too? Shaquille O’Neal… OMG, Islam peace!111!!1!1!!!11111!!!1!11!!!.

  7. says

    “a collection of contradictions”
    Not a problem for a follower of the “prophet”.
    Heads counterterrorism…now do we laugh or cry?
    I go for “weep”!

  8. says

    After the fall of the Berlin Wall the biggest threat has been pedohammedan asymmetric warfare/terrorism. This is like allowing a communist be the head of the CIA during the Cold War.

  9. says

    Terrorism by underground groups or individual zealots is against the Muslim playbook right now. What IS in the Muslim playbook may be shown by a program Hillary Hamhocks’ Department of State is running in France:

    In France, the U.S. Embassy in Paris co-sponsored a seminar to teach Muslims in France how they can politically organize themselves. Operatives from the Democratic Party coached 70 Muslim “diversity leaders” from disaffected Muslim-majority suburban slums known as banlieues on how to develop a communications strategy, raise funds and build a political base.

    The French government — which has been trying to reverse the pernicious effects of decades of state-sponsored multiculturalism — expressed dismay at what it called “meddling.”

    The Obama administration’s Muslim-oriented coaching sessions on community organizing come as the Persian Gulf Emirate of Qatar is busy peddling the fundamentalist teachings of Wahhabi Islam — which not only discourages Muslim integration into the West, but actively encourages jihad [holy war] against non-Muslims — to hundreds of thousands of disgruntled Muslim immigrants in France.

    As the Obamans and the Wahhabis compete for influence among Muslim immigrants, forward-looking analysts fret that France may yet end up with politically organized jihadists turning the banlieues into Islamic emirates.

    This is just one of several “outreach” programs in various European countries run by State and described by Soeren Kern here:

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2916/state-department-promoting-islam-europe

    This, in addition to the Muslim importation programs State is running from garden spots like Somalia to increase the Muslim demographic in the U.S.

  10. says

    “presides over a campaign that has killed thousands of Islamist militants and angered millions of Muslims, but he is himself a convert to Islam.”

    Where’s the contradiction? Millions of Moslems have been killed, just in the last 40 years, by rulers like Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam, and the Ayatollah, all of whom were Moslems themselves, although not recent converts.

  11. says

    It was the same with Simon Cowell – his Afghan-American girlfriend wanted him to convert to Islam – to marry him.

    Serious laws which lend themselves to the violation of human rights in the Islamic world – in Egypt – Christian sisters who were married with children – father converted to Islam when they were children for a divorce [the Coptic church does not provide and there is no civil law] had their marriages annulled – once it was discovered – their children forcibly converted to Islam and they were both imprisoned for 3 years each – by a judge.

    It is stepping off the precipice to say we should understand and be okay with this law.

    ::

    But many people join Islam – on what they read in the newspaper – it’s on the authoritative account taken from one reporter – based on the authoritative account of another.

    These converts often say strange things like – See I’m a Muslim and I’m not a terrorist!!

    Cluelessness personified!!

    ::

    It all comes down to how much they are willing to accept from their new religion – and this is what broadly distinguishes a so-called moderate from the so-called radical and this has to do with how much of the religion they do observe.

    And how much one can be controlled – by the fear of going to [the new] hell for not abiding by the rules as set out in the religion – laid down by Muhammad’s example.

    [And these examples can’t be questioned – forever and ever!!
    Perhaps the CIA terror chief prefers Islam-lite!]

    ::

    He’s married a Muslim woman – so he has taken a smoke of the pipe – if he is killing terrorists – perhaps he can put it down when he wants – he is not craving for it throughout the day!!

    Obviously, it would be wise to watch out for addictive behavior!

  12. says

    I would like to hear his thoughts on, and counter-argument too, Jihadists and Islamic supremacists views. Guess that wont happen though. When it could be helpful to all. But knowing how Jihadists use ANYTHING to incite violence and hate, it would probably back-fire.

  13. says

    What is his name? If he changed his name with muslim name then he is serious about Islam. It is prefereble for muslim converts not to use pagan, infidel names.

  14. says

    If I said I became a Neo-Nazi because my in-laws insisted on it, I would either be a coward or at least half-way sympathetic to the cause.

    This SOB is a Muslim and has NO reason to be part of the CIA other than to derail investigations of his Muslim barrow brothers.

    Are we that stupid that we allow the devil who hates us to protect us from our enemies?

    The Muslim in the Oval Office MUST BE REMOVED. Preferably by ballot.

  15. says

    Mmmm … Gamekeeper turned poacher, eh..?! Still, some positive signs of a short tenure at the top of the CIA pile; ‘The man with the nicotine habit is in his late 50s …’ and ‘A chain-smoker …’

    So, maybe he’ll retire soon, or the baccy habit will get him. Or, maybe marrying a Muslima was a double bluff, or a double couble bluff, or whatever. ‘War is deceit’, works both ways.

    Interesting!

  16. says

    We have a similar thing in the UK – the head of our anti-terrorism squad is a muslim too!
    Can you believe that?
    Oh, and he made the decision to concentrate more on home grown right-wing neo nazi gangs, as he claimed that Islamic terror wasn’t a real threat.

    Yup – let’s all hire a fox to guard the hens.

  17. says

    “The question is this: some might liken Roger to a top American official joining the Nazi Party during World War II. Others would liken Roger to a top American official marrying a German immigrant during World War II, and coming under unjust suspicion as a result. German Americans, of course, could oppose and fight against National Socialism unequivocally, without any lingering allegiance to it; Muslims who profess to reject and abhor Islamic terrorism, however, still profess belief in a book and a prophet that have inspired Islamic violence and supremacism worldwide, even among believers who have no institutional connection to al-Qaeda or any other jihad group.”

    And the answer to the question is clear, because the Constitution guarantee political and religious freedom.

    Consequently people should be hired or not hired because of their skills and merit, not because of their faith or political belief. And people should not be forced to choose between their faiths or political beliefs and their jobs.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public and private employment.

    All attempts to criminalize membership of the Nazi Party and the Communist Party was later found unconstitutional. The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act of 1940 is a United States federal statute that set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government.

    The Act is best known for its use against political organizations and figures, with approximately 215 Americans indicted under terms of the legislation, including alleged communists, Trotskyists, and fascists. Prosecutions continued under the Smith Act until a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in 1957 reversed a number of convictions so obtained as unconstitutional. The statute has not been repealed, but in my opinion it is clearly unconstitutional.

  18. says

    This is insane and it screams, CONFLICT OF INTEREST! This is on a par of leaving a fox in charge of the hen house. Roger should be fired, but of course he won’t be. And I don’t care if he helped kill bin laden, at some point there WILL be a high price to pay for having a muslim convert as our CIA counterterrorism chief. I don’t know, maybe his muslim wife whispers sweet nothings in his ear while he sleeps. I mean I wouldn’t put it past her. What was Roger thinking marrying a muslim anyway? I agree with Wellington, Roger is a very confused man. And if I could I would fire him stat!

  19. says

    Is the CIA as infiltrated as any other U.S. governmental agency under Obama? Why would it not be? Will a review and hindsight show that Rogers used his position to aid and abet the enemy? Or, is being a Muslim some kind of ridiculous cover? If even the CIA cannot grasp the deceitful nature of Islam and understand what it really teaches, then we are doomed. The Islamic Mahdi will be a worse anti-Christ than Hitler.

  20. says

    I hate to say it, but if it’s been six years then this is all Bush’s fault. Ypu really don’t think that Obama would have replaced him, do you?

  21. says

    Given that people suspect Obama himself of being a Muslim, how much worse is it that the head of the CIA actually happens to be one?

    Hopefully, after November, the CIA would get a new head, although a non-dhimmi one would be too much to hope for.

  22. says

    Just some random facts that are relevant.

    The top eshelons of the CIA and MI6 have been complete idiots before.

    It is entirely possible that Angleton was Sasha the whole time and we all know about Burgis and Philby.

    Moles don’t sabotage everything. They do their jobs well so as to be promoted and keep their positions.

    I assume the wife and her family, and their mosque contacts have been thoroughly vetted. Not that that would mean anything.

    Wives of highly placed officials have been used for espionage in the past.

    Spies don’t just steal “secret” information. They go to parties. They ask people what they think about stuff, they see who talks to who- all sorts of little innocuous bits of information that can be used by others.

    If she isn’t a spy, she will still be the target of influence and whisper campaigns – or an enemy sympathizer can try to get snippets of seemingly unimportant gossip out of her.

    Remember the Muslim Brotherhood have schooled themselves thoroughly in cold war espionage and subversion tactics – their networks mirror exactly the Soviet fielded subversion networks in America during the Cold War. It’s not paranoid to think they and their agents are capable of anything the Soviet spies did. Spies aren’t superheros.

    Honey traps are not fantasy. Women have been used in many ways to turn all sorts of officials and agents. I’d love to think a CIA official was above such but, well, they are often nerds.

    And didn’t Lee Harvey Oswald marry the daughter of a soviet official? Or was that just conspiracy theory nonsense? IDK.

    No matter how romantic or nice you are this does seem to feel like one of those many past situations of which we now say “how could they not have known better?”

    And that a troll posted on this page to support it didn’t help – unless his real purpose was to sow suspicion by merely doing so.

    What is absolutely known is that I have read far too many nonfiction books about espionage.

  23. says

    I think Ole Hartling has stumbled into the truth, as his own ridiculously legalistic position illustrates the common sense and wisdom of the opposite position. Just as no sane person would expect that the NAACP would reasonably consider a KKK grand wizard for its presidency, neither could any rational person advocate that a person adhering to an ideology that is antithetical to American civilization be granted a high position in the US government. But really, I think it gets to the crux of the matter as far as the West’s relationship with Islam. We don’t need to outlaw it and ban it, just as we don’t need to outlaw and ban the KKK or the American Nazi party. The reason these groups don’t come to serious power in the US is because of an unwritten, extralegal “cordon sanitaire” that the American public has placed around those groups. It’s simply not acceptable to allow them into the public discourse. It’s not illegal for an American Nazi to run for president, but he would be so hindered by Americans at EVERY level that it couldn’t get off the ground, because Americans understand Nazism. This is how Islam needs to be tackled and reigned in, IMO: A cultural intolerance of Islam, our own extralegal cordon sanitaire. This is really how it HAS to be in a liberal democracy, IMO, because laws on the books have to be interpreted, supported, and upheld by a responsible body of citizens who share the cultural values underlying those laws. Laws cannot be forced onto a population that doesn’t recognize them as legitimate, and that’s why our best step would be to limit Muslim immigration completely in the first place.

  24. says

    Anybody still wonder why Israel is not offering the U.S. details on any plans to attack Iran?

    Also..

    “Others would liken Roger to a top American official marrying a German immigrant during World War II, and coming under unjust suspicion as a result.”

    The key here is that being German did not mean you were a member of the Nazi party, or a supporter.

    However, if you wear the badge of muslim, it flags you as a “member” of the followers of islam. That is a red alert warning, over just being born in a country.

    He has made a choice, take note.

  25. says

    I am an optimist person generally. However I feel very inadequate in understanding these high level “security” people dealing with ISLAM daily and still converting to ISLAM. This is more than troubling, it is scary. If they do not understand ISLAM, how can an average JOE that I try to talk daily understand what is going on?

  26. says

    Something that was posted here in July 2009 by jihadwatch occasional poster ‘kamala’ (who has done some excellent work on her (?) own blog, elsewhere, demolishing the sly apologetic book ‘The Muslim Next Door’ and also deconstructing the pretty and slick and infinitely-specious ‘Discover Islam’ posters that appear at just about every mosque ‘Open Day’/ da’wa effort).

    Kamala wrote:

    ‘Jeff Lang is an American Muslim convert. Unlike most Muslims we hear about around here, he’s very honest and I believe truthfully working toward a real transformation of Islam into a peaceful ideology. He is accomplishing this in part by steadily analyzing many of the “authentic” hadith and demonstrating that they cannot be true.

    ‘But as Robert has pointed out many times, one can only reform what one admits has a problem, and Lang readily does, in his 1997 book “Even Angels Ask.”

    ‘What does Lang have to say about the impact of Islamic jurisprudence?

    “A minority of Muslims … believes that we must remain cognizant of the historical context of Muhammad’s actions and sayings and that if we are to apply his example correctly, we must be alert to the many differences that exist between his time and ours…

    “The main assumption behind the stricter approach is that the best and most efficient way to derive moral and spiritual benefit from Muhammad’s life example is by imitating him as closely as possible. (p. 104)

    ‘Further:

    “Almost all Muslim religious leaders … uphold the classical dar al Islam/dar al harb concept …

    “**This poses a very difficult personal dilemma for many converts, because it seems to them that to become a Muslim, they are required to become enemies of their own countries** {my emphasis – dda}. (p. 119)

    ‘And Lang writes of his own experience attending a Muslim lecture at an American mosque in the early 80s:

    “The second lecture was given by Hisham, a very bright medical student who had been studying in America for almost two years. I liked and respected Hisham very much…

    “Hisham spoke that night about a Muslim’s duties and responsibilities… His speech was very moving and had been running about an hour when he closed it with the following unexpected and stern remark.

    – “Finally, we must never forget–and this is extremely important–that **as Muslims, we are obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government–anywhere in the world–in order to replace it by an Islamic one.”** {my emphasis – dda}.

    “Hisham!” I [Lang] interrupted. “Are you implying that Muslim American citizens are to commit themselves to the destruction of the U.S. government?–That they are to be a fifth column in America–a secret revolutionary group seeking to overthrow the government? Do you mean that when an American converts to Islam he must commit himself to political treason?!”

    “I thought that by presenting Hisham with a very extreme scenario, it would force him to soften or qualify his statement.

    “He looked down at the floor as he pondered my question momentarily.

    “Then he looked at me with an expression that reminded me of a doctor about to break the news to his patient that his tumor is malignant.

    “Yes,” he said. “Yes, that’s true.” (p. 117)”. END QUOTE, and END OF COMMENT.

    Apologies for not being able to give a link to the comments thread: this one was posted while we were doing Comments in Intensedebate, which for some reason ultimately went down in flames, such that we went back to Typepad; and all comments made during the Intensedebate era did not ‘roll over’, alas.

    But, fortunately, I made a copy of the more interesting comments – as I always do – on my own computer, and thus I am able to share this one as appropriate.

    It is very appropriate, here.

    I am afraid that I do not and cannot trust Mr Muslim I-converted-to-marry-a-Muslimah Rogers one little tiny bit. I don’t think anybody should be asked to trust him.

    If there is anyone lurking here, from the FBI or CIA or DHS – and that includes even the guy, somebody must do it, who **cleans Mr Roger’s office and empties his ashtrays** – then I beg you,for the love of God and the sake of humanity and civilisation, keep an eye on him!

  27. says

    At least now we – and a large part of the free world – *know* he’s a Muslim. And a modicum of knowledge of the way Islam works – Muslimahs aren’t allowed to marry non-Muslims – allows us to draw our own conclusions about the likes of Weiner and Norquist.

    But it’s the possibility of highly-placed Nu’aym bin Mas’uds (see Spencer’s ‘The Truth About Muhammad’, pp. 127-128) that should *really* give us the creeps.

  28. says

    As in other parts of the world where the muslims are a minority, I do believe they engage in love jihad, that is to entice a non muslim partner into marriage and then have them converted to islam and condition for marriage. The muslim male or female will make themselves appear to be attractive, secular, easy going, and not religious to attract the nonmuslim partner. Normally muslim female are not supposed to even date nonmuslim males it is haram, however to entice a non muslim to marry them with the goal of conversion to islam makes this halal. The higher up in the social-economic ladder the more value is put on this. I think in this case the muslima got a big catch for islam.

  29. says

    I’d prefer Roger Rabbit as chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, that’s safer. No seriously, he’s a fox in the henhouse. You can’t trust a convert to Islam, they’re traitors.

  30. says

    So,what else might our great patriot “Mr. Rogers” do if his muslim in-laws apply the pressure to his continued marriage. I wouldn’t trust anyone in a sensitive position
    if he’s inclined to be led around by his schwanz. Least of all a muslim, convert or revert, no matter…

  31. says

    A pertinent morsel noticably absent from the article, or at least the non-paying portion that I could access, is when exactly this “Roger” evidently “reverted” to Islam.

    The article doesn’t say as far as I can tell, and without knowing that, or who this “Roger” even remotely is, this entire article could be a fabrication, intentional fodder to try to appeal to Muslims and gullible non-Muslims alike, I mean, it’s certainly not out of the plausible speculative realm, for this is the WaPo we’re talking about.

    Does anyone have anything to contribute in this regard?

    Thanks in advance.

  32. says

    Wellington: One further note:

    Calvin’s emphasis on predestination (and I confess that doctrine, along with Paul, Isaiah, John, and Jesus himself) was no more extensive that Luther’s. Luther’s _Bondage of the Will_ (a polemic against Erasmus) and _Lectures on Romans_, for example, are about as predestinarian as anything ever written by Calvin or the Reformed divines gathered at Dordrecht, Netherlands, in 1619 (whose definition of predestination is regarded as definitive by most orthodox Reformed folks).

    If there’s a relentless axiom in Calvin that guides all else, I’d see it as his biblicism (take a look at the first several chapters of “On the Knowldege of God the Creator”, Book I of _The Institutes of the Christian Religion_. I reccommend the Ford Lewis Battles translation).

    And, as for the Calvinists’ search for a godly Commonwealth, they were neither more nor less intense than the counter-Reformation in Spain and Italy in preserving a religiously-organized society (albeit on ROmanist rather than Reformed lines).

  33. says

    To defend Calvin a little, it should be noted that the first real democracies in Europe were all influenced by Calvinism: Holland, Britain, and Switzerland. And don’t forget that Calvinists such as James Wilson had a major impact on the U.S. Constitutional Convention.

    The ‘Protestant work ethic’ and its benefits also derived from Calvinism.

  34. says

    DefenderofIslam wrote:

    “Laws cannot be forced onto a population that doesn’t recognize them as legitimate, and that’s why our best step would be to limit Muslim immigration completely in the first place.

    Agreed. That seems too sentient for you DoI.

    DefenderofIslam also wrote:

    “Cordon off Islam willnot worked in america if by 2050 there are 30 to 50 million muslum in america there will be city control by muslum office holder many member of congress will be muslum as federal judges will be muslum.”

    That estimate is a grave overestimate in my opinion, but the sentiment is well-received and noted.

    In the future, stop misspelling “muslum” and you might have an outside chance of being taken seriously here at JW.

    Just some advice.

  35. says

    I had a pleasant little chat with a young Muslim woman on Facebook, for a couple of weeks. About this and that, Islam was barely mentioned.

    I was waiting for it …..and then it came: she had a male acquaintance on Facebook who would like to explain to me what Islam was about.

  36. says

    Since [presumably] all of us posters here are outsiders discussing an internal CIA matter, we may be making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

    [……no pun intended….]

  37. says

    Modern Western history cannot consider the role of Calvin in abstraction from the role of Hobbes. Each represented polar vectors, as it were, on opposite ends of the spectrum reflecting the disease of resisting the tension of existence — the former indulging in the sin of spiritual superbia, the latter in the sin of reaction against that superbia by denying the summum bonum as a factor at all in political science. It is testament to the enduring underlying health of Western noesis that America was able to rediscover and renew the tension out of that epochal breakdown.

  38. says

    From p. 3 of the Washington Post article (p. 3 is not accessible unless you log in, so many may not have read that far):

    Roger is seen by some as culpable for one of the agency’s most tragic events ” the deaths of seven CIA employees at the hands of a suicide bomber who was invited to a meeting at a CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan, in December 2009.

    An internal review concluded that the assailant, a Jordanian double-agent who promised breakthrough intelligence on al-Qaeda leaders, had not been fully vetted…

    Of course, this must have been merely a tragic incident which we must chalk up to a lapse in competence; because, surely, Roger’s predilection for Islam (already budding at that time, one assumes, even if it might have been before his engagement with the Muslima and subsequent conversion) cannot possibly have had anything to do with this. Right…?

    To put a human face on this atrocity, here’s a pic of one of the CIA agents murdered by that trusted Muslim — one Jennifer Matthews, with her little children at home:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/01/19/Local-Enterprise/Images/CIA001c%20.jpg

  39. says

    So? why doesn’t he bear witness to his conversion?
    If he has the integrity that WaPo so credits him, and he is an evident executive, why don’t we hear his name? Or is this another Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson gambits?
    I guess it’s a form of chic; like Agha Norquist.

  40. says

    I have mixed feelings about this. the bloggers here should this, that if a muslim/man or woman is married to a non muslim their children are considered bastards. the word for it in Farsi is haramzadeh which litarally means bastard. when I getting on the plane in 1976 to come to the states, my father pulled me aside and told me” what ever you do don’t bring me back an American wife!”. sure enough I got married to non practsing blond hair blue eyes born and bred in simi valley CA! I did not have the balls to tell my dad and my uncle came to my rescue and told my dad. My dad did not talk to me for month and he finnally called and wanted to know her name, her parents name all kind of information that i found to be strange. later he called me and married me in absentia by the way of sharia laws!!! so things were happily ever after!! however secular muslims when they marry out of their religion give a shit less about asking the other side to convert. so the point here is that this woman whom this CIA officer is married to must be at least some what practising, which is kind of disturbing. one can say that this officer fell in true love, or one can say when the dick gets hard the brain goes soft!! however that said and just like robert said this should not be a forward to say that this offcer is not patriotic. to that end it seems that the officer and his staff litaraly destroyed Alqueda, to that end if this is true we need more muslims like him.
    M

  41. says

    Ole Hartling, do you think you could write things in your own words rather than just putting down verbatim what you get from Wikipedia? An example of such is your second to last sentence in your 9:09 A.M. post. Moreover, the Smith Act is still good law and still prohibits putting forth ideas with an intention to incite violence against the federal government. What the 1957 Supreme Court cases did was to disallow application of the Smith Act for people putting forth ideas just for conceptual reasons. Also, the federal government is under no legal or constitutional obligation to hire someone it has by a reasonable man standard to think would be a security risk. For instance, someone who is very openly and publicly a Maoist Marxist is not entitled to be hired by the federal government. He can spout his nonsense all he wants but he can’t do so to the point of inciting others to violence and he is not under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act guaranteed a job with the government.

    Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. People like you, though, I fear would make it such. Really, Ole Hartling, your contrarianism has become, as I mentioned in a previous post, quite tedious and sometimes downright foolish.

  42. says

    Your statement is troubling.

    Consider this..

    I could take a glass of Kool-aid, and add rat poison, and thay state you can drink is safely, just don’t drink the poison with it.

    Is that like what you are saying?

  43. says

    your analogy of cia and others are infiltrated is not exactly correct. it is the same analogy by anti semites who claim the jews are running our forign policy, the jews are cotrolling the media and money etc,,, they are americans first and jews second. I was having a conversation last night with syrian muslim who was clearly anti jews that the under sectary of treasury some guy named cohen who in charge of enforcing the sanction against iran, is a jew who hates muslims. no he may be a jew, but he is anti muslim and is a patriotic american. to say that they a muslim guy running the most sensetive side of the cia operation for 6 years, and he has no loyalty to america does not pan out.
    M

  44. says

    CIA’s counterterrorism chief is convert to Islam
    ………………………….

    Yes”I read this yesterday, thanks to a link provided by another poster (sorry, I can’t remember who it was, but props to him).

    Are we Americans f*cking *suicidal*? We elected a president of uncertain loyalties who was born a Muslim, and now our *CIA counterterrorism chief is convert to Islam*.

    That we find ourselves in this position ten years after 9/11 is unbelievable.

    Are we *insane*?

    More:

    He converted to Islam to get married (Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man) and “is not demonstrably observant,” but “he is known to clutch a strand of prayer beads.”

    It is impossible to tell from this how serious he is about Islam…
    ………………………….

    No. But at the very least, his loyalties are in question. This by itself is utter madness.

    Along with a handful of other agencies such as Mossad and British Intelligence, the CIA presents one of the strongest lines against Jihad terror in the world today. And now it is helmed by a man belonging to the same vile creed as the Jihdists themselves.

    It is not only Americans who are more at risk as a result, but *the entire world*.

    Vampire Jack wrote:

    We have a similar thing in the UK – the head of our anti-terrorism squad is a muslim too!
    Can you believe that?
    ………………………….

    Oh, God”is this true? Do you have a link with more information, Vampire Jack? I tried googling and haven’t had any luck…

  45. says

    Thanks for critique.

    However, I think you misunderstood my arguments, or I failed to express myself with sufficient clarity. The main point is to understand the distinction between (spiritual) ideas based upon belief – religious or political – and actions including verbal incitement to violence. All ideas are allowed and can be freely expressed, but certain actions (also speech ‘actions’) may be criminalized.

    You claim that: “someone who is very openly and publicly a Maoist Marxist is not entitled to be hired by the federal government.” If that is all he is then it does not disqualify him from a job at the federal government, if he is otherwise qualified for the job. That is unless you think the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 is unconstitutional.

    The act contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and *political affiliation*.

    Your outspoken Maoist Marxist could even be employed by the CIA, if qualified, because the CIA is an Equal Opportunity Employer:

    “The Agency does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation in hiring or in granting, denying, or revoking security clearances.” (Quoted from the CIA homepage). Somehow the agency forgot to mention *political affiliation*, which is clearly a mistake.

    What the Constitution is or is not, or should be, is up to the American voters, the lawmakers and the Supreme Court to decide. The Constitution is man-made and can consequently be changed by man, as it has been many times, because it allows such changes.

  46. says

    Yes”I read this yesterday, thanks to a link provided by another poster (sorry, I can’t remember who it was, but props to him).
    ………………………………

    It was Daniel Bielak and Rich. Thanks again.

  47. says

    “Are we Americans f*cking *suicidal*?”

    Yes, yes we are along with the rest of the West.

    The empire is burning and the emperor is fiddling like a madman.

  48. says

    Let’s keep this simple, shall we…?

    Would NASA employ someone to oversee the launch of orbiting satellites who believed the Earth was flat? No! It would screw things up, big time.

    That’s what it’s like employing someone who’s a Muslim to crack down on Islamic jihad.

    All your fiddle-faddle and hair splitting is just you cutting and pasting and preening your feathers in public.

    Give us a break!

  49. says

    Ole Hartling wrote:

    Your outspoken Maoist Marxist could even be employed by the CIA, if qualified, because the CIA is an Equal Opportunity Employer:

    “The Agency does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation in hiring or in granting, denying, or revoking security clearances.” (Quoted from the CIA homepage). Somehow the agency forgot to mention *political affiliation*, which is clearly a mistake.
    ……………………………..

    “Clearly a mistake”, huh?

    Do you really believe that your hypothetical “outspoken Maoist Marxist” could be trusted by the American people to act in our interests when dealing with Communist China?

    Do you believe the American people should have been happy to have had a Heil-Hitlering member of the German American Bund heading the OSS during WWII?

    This is absurd. While a person’s origins may not always matter, a person’s *avowed beliefs* certainly do.

  50. says

    An interesting post!

    When I worked in Saudi during the 1990s, I met two British guys who had married local Saudi women. Both had to convert to Islam to get permision. However, they did not give a damn about Islam and never went to the Mosque.

  51. says

    yes. and it is same case for this cia officer, I am sure of it. if not cair would be crying out loud that an american muslim is killing other muslims.
    M

  52. says

    I concur with your assessment, BTP. Ole Hartling’s relentless, Calvinistic type logic would make it likely, if not a given, that free societies in the name of freedom would end up losing it. Just apply common sense to the law of free nations and one will avoid reductio ad absurdum.

  53. says

    We don’t need to outlaw it and ban it, just as we don’t need to outlaw and ban the KKK or the American Nazi party. The reason these groups don’t come to serious power in the US is because of an unwritten, extralegal “cordon sanitaire” that the American public has placed around those groups.

    What Boston Tea Party curiously fails to factor in is the fact that the KKK, the post-WW2 Nazis, and the Communists never did a 911, nor have their members for the last 60+ years done any number of other attacks as Muslims have been doing — both successful, and those many more plotted but luckily aborted by our intelligence. No neo-Nazi, KKK or Communist ever did a Fort Hood, let alone all the other deadly shit Muslims have been doing, and trying to do. Think of all the plots to mass-murder Americans before and after 911 — not to mention plots to mass-murder Canadians, French, Italians, Dutch, Germans, British.

    Not to mention all the plots to mass murder outside the West — hotels in Jordan, machine-gunning tourists in Egypt, blowing up nightclubs fucking TWICE in Bali (with a third plot recently foiled), blowing up ferries in Manila, in the south Philippines abducting tourists and monks and nuns and BEHEADING them, guerrilla wars of terror attacks in various places around the world. What I am describing is the mere tip of a vast iceberg spanning the Goddamned globe.

    Wellington, though he seems to take issue with Ole Hartling on this above, himself basically proferred the same analogy to me a few days ago in another comments section.

    I’m not surprised that an Ole Hartling would retail this crap; but I continue to be amazed and irked — no: INFURIATED — by Jihad Watch readers sitting on top of this fucking mountain of data going back years showing that such an analogy is utter bullshit, showing that Muslims are astronomically more deadly than neo-Nazis, KKK and Communists combined for fuck sake — and yet at this late date you guys purvey it still?

    And by the way, back when the West was rational, the U.S. executed two American citizens who were Communists for the crime of deadly sedition (selling nuclear secrets to the Soviets and otherwise supporting the Soviets against America). If we can execute citizens for deadly sedition, surely we can deport them. God you guys piss me off.

  54. says

    I think Ole Hartling has stumbled into the truth, as his own ridiculously legalistic position illustrates the common sense and wisdom of the opposite position. Just as no sane person would expect that the NAACP would reasonably consider a KKK grand wizard for its presidency, neither could any rational person advocate that a person adhering to an ideology that is antithetical to American civilization be granted a high position in the US government. But really, I think it gets to the crux of the matter as far as the West’s relationship with Islam. We don’t need to outlaw it and ban it, just as we don’t need to outlaw and ban the KKK or the American Nazi party. The reason these groups don’t come to serious power in the US is because of an unwritten, extralegal “cordon sanitaire” that the American public has placed around those groups. It’s simply not acceptable to allow them into the public discourse. It’s not illegal for an American Nazi to run for president, but he would be so hindered by Americans at EVERY level that it couldn’t get off the ground, because Americans understand Nazism. This is how Islam needs to be tackled and reigned in, IMO: A cultural intolerance of Islam, our own extralegal cordon sanitaire. This is really how it HAS to be in a liberal democracy, IMO, because laws on the books have to be interpreted, supported, and upheld by a responsible body of citizens who share the cultural values underlying those laws. Laws cannot be forced onto a population that doesn’t recognize them as legitimate, and that’s why our best step would be to limit Muslim immigration completely in the first place.

    Cordon off Islam willnot worked in america if by 2050 there are 30 to 50 million muslum in america there will be city control by muslum office holder many member of congress will be muslum as federal judges will be muslum. Have you ever wonder why Irish where electic mayor many time when they where than tiny immagment group compare to the rest, simple they where the least dislike. Than Gemany hated the French the French hated the germany but they both like the Irish.

  55. says

    Don’t insult Ole Hartling with that ‘Calvinistic’ label. He styles himself as a ‘Free-thinker’ above all.

    But for our purposes he is 95% Troll.

  56. says

    As a Calvinist myself, I’d prefer to see Ole’s logic as 17th century Lutheran scholastic! (in-joke to any serious students of theology out there).

  57. says

    And let’s not forget another piece of that pattern:

    Grover Norquist who has the ears of and influence over many in the GOP is married to a fakestinian baghead who happens to be a PR specialist who works of the United States Agency for “International Development.”

  58. says

    Of course, TD, I meant no disrespect to Presbyterians, but old John Calvin, brilliant though he was, was possessed of a remorseless kind of logic which led him to such results as an exceedingly dreary emphasis on predestination and a disallowance, while he was in the process of creating a New Jerusalem in Geneva, of much fun in life, forbidding as he did any theater except plays which dealt with biblical themes, any names for newborn babes except ones found in the Bible and even no dancing (Fred Astaire, if having lived in Calvin’s Geneva, would have been lost to history for all time). I prefer the flexibility of Aquinas’ theology or even Luther’s to that of John Calvin. Just a personal preference that this old agnostic has, nothing more. Hope you and yours are doing well.

  59. says

    For newbies to this site and this subject, a portion of Spencer’s account of Nu’yam bin Mas’ud, from “The Truth About Muhammad” (which is based on the core Islamic texts).

    “A new convert to Islam, Nu’aym bin Mas’ud, came to the Prophet with a proposition: **since his own people, the Ghatafan, did not know that he had become a Muslim, Muhammad could perhaps make use of him to gain an advantage over his enemies** {my emphasis – dda}.

    “Muhammad immediately recognized the potential of the situation, saying: ‘You are only one man among us, so go and awake distrust among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is deceit'”.

  60. says

    Of course, TD, I meant no disrespect to Presbyterians…

    Oh, I know what you meant. I just meant my line as a lead-in to Ole’s way of thinking.

    In comparing the two (Ole and Calvin), I’d take Calvin. At least as a blogger he’d be consistant from post to post.

  61. says

    Good question:

    “Would NASA employ someone to oversee the launch of orbiting satellites who believed the Earth was flat? No! It would screw things up, big time.”

    It would of course disqualify anybody from such a job if he did not know shit about rocket science, basic physics and astronomy. But it is totally irrelevant if he used to be a loyal member of the German Nazi Party and a high ranking officer in the SS. That would not screw anything up, especially if he is as qualified for the job as Werner von Braun was.

    In his 20s and early 30s, von Braun was the central figure in Germany’s rocket development program, responsible for the design and realization of the V-2 combat rocket during World War II. After the war, he and some of his rocket team were taken to the U.S. as part of the then-secret Operation Paperclip. Von Braun worked on the US Army intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) program before his group was assimilated by NASA, under which he served as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight Center and as the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that propelled the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon. According to one NASA source, he is “without doubt, the greatest rocket scientist in history”. His crowning achievement was to lead the development of the Saturn V booster rocket that helped land the first men on the Moon in July 1969. In 1975 he received the National Medal of Science.

    As for his attitude toward the National Socialist regime in the late 1930s and early 1940s, there can be little doubt that he was a loyal, perhaps mildly enthusiastic subject of Hitler’s dictatorship. With the Führer going from success to success — eliminating unemployment, tearing up the Versailles Treaty, rearming, reoccupying the Rhineland, and then in 1938 absorbing Austria and the Czech Sudetenland without war — there is no doubt that the regime, but above all Hitler, had become immensely popular. Von Braun, a German nationalist immersed in a military environment, doubtlessly found much he could like about these accomplishments, and little reason to be disturbed, especially in view of how much money had been poured into his beloved rocketry as a result of rearmament. He admitted in a 1952 memoir article that he “fared relatively rather well under totalitarialism.”

    He officially applied for membership in the NSDAP on November 12, 1937 and was issued membership number 5,738,692. Later von Braun joined the Allgemeine SS, which was not an armed unit, and was issued SS-membership number 185,068.

    When after the defection to the U.S. shown a picture of him behind Himmler, Braun claimed to have worn the SS uniform only that one time, but in 2002 a former SS officer at Peenemünde told the BBC that von Braun had regularly worn the SS uniform to official meetings; it should be noted that this was mandatory. He began as an Untersturmführer (Second lieutenant) and was promoted three times by Himmler, the last time in June 1943 to SS-Sturmbannführer (major). Von Braun claimed this was a technical promotion received each year regularly by mail.

    Von Braun became so popular in the U.S. that a nasty socialist critic, Tom Lehrer, made a memrable song about him:

    “And what is it that put America in the forefront of the nuclear nations? And what is it that will make it possible to spend 20 billion dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? Well, it was good old American know-how, that’s what. As provided by good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun.

    Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,
    A man whose allegiance
    Is ruled by expedience.
    Call him a Nazi, he won’t even frown.
    “Ha, Nazi Schmazi,” says Wernher von Braun.

    Don’t say that he’s hypocritical,
    Say rather that he’s apolitical.

    “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
    That’s not my department,” says Wernher von Braun.

    Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
    But some think our attitude
    Should be one of gratitude,
    Like the widows and cripples in old London town
    Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.

    You too may be a big hero,
    Once you’ve learned to count backwards to zero.
    “In German oder English I know how to count down,
    Und I’m learning Chinese,” says Wernher von Braun.”

    Indeed, Werner von Braun found an Equal Opportunity Employer in NASA!

  62. says

    American air passengers are not asleep. 9/11 would be practically impossible today:
    ITV News, USA Today, March 27th 2012
    Captain of JetBlue NY – Vegas flight flips out, locked out of flight deck, threatens to blow up plane, and taken down by passengers. The flight was diverted to Amarillo TX.

  63. says

    “I’m not surprised that an Ole Hartling would retail this crap; but I continue to be amazed and irked — no: INFURIATED — by Jihad Watch readers sitting on top of this fucking mountain of data going back years showing that such an analogy is utter bullshit, showing that Muslims are astronomically more deadly than neo-Nazis, KKK and Communists combined for fuck sake — and yet at this late date you guys purvey it still?”

    Better watch that blood pressure or you’re going to blow a gasket, there. I disagree that Islam is even remotely as dangerous as communism or Nazism was. Islam is a failed civilization that can barely master the flush toilet, and by any rational standard shouldn’t be challenging the West culturally, economically, technologically or militarily. It was a pathetic, anachronistic cult to the West just a few generations ago. Islam hasn’t changed—the West has. Cultural relativsm and subjectivism have so eaten away at the core of the West, that we’re no longer able to pass even the mildest judgement on inferior, barbaric cultures, and that’s the root of our problem.

    The Nazis and the Communists were true economic, technologic and military rivals—the West was barely able to come out ahead of them in regards to cutting edge military technology, and the world was pushed to the brink of destruction facing down both of them. Communism and Nazism were jointly responsible for the deaths of what, 130 million people in about a 50 year time span? I do agree that increases in the overall percentages of Muslims in the West is a real danger—but the Islamic world wouldn’t be a serious threat to the West today if the West hadn’t been so spiritually and intellectually hollowed out in the last 50 years.

  64. says

    Tom,

    The incident you linked to describes a very specific situation: a pilot “flipping out” and ranting and acting crazy. Will Muslims always be stupid enough to visibly, demonstrably show all passengers and crew what they plan to do on a plane? And spend several minutes (if not perhaps a full hour) doing so? There are plenty of scenarios where Muslims will be able to pull off plane terrorism (whether just blowing up the planes — as the plot a few years ago emanating out of Heathrow airport in England planned by a cell of Muslims including a man and wife who were going to use their baby formula bottle for the explosive with their baby along for the ride to the Hell they call Paradise, a plot which, by the way, according to MI5 would have likely killed far more than 911, perhaps 10,000 — or using the plane to ram into targets).

    The only way to drastically minimize such potentially deadly scenarios (many of which no one has yet imagined, but which obsessive fanatics who have too much time on their hands could come up with) is to not allow Muslims to fly on planes. Better yet would be to deport Muslims altogether from the West; since planes aren’t the only context or venue for terrorism. Innumerable multitudes of opportunities and contexts abound throughout our free societies in the West for obsessive fanatics hell-bent on mass-murder in the name of their Islam to come up with.

    Just because neither (banning Muslims from planes; banning Muslims from the West) can even be discussed today (let alone implemented) due to our PC MC climate, does not mean it’s not the most rational thing to do, nor that it is not pragmatically doable. The only obstacle is the thoughts and feelings in the hearts and minds of the idiots who dominate our culture with their PC MC subculture. Thoughts and feelings, and ideas, can change — especially in free societies. And PC MC with regard to how we treat Muslims will change. It’s not a matter of IF. It’s only a matter of WHEN. The longer we wait, the costlier, the messier, and the bloodier (on both sides) will be the result.

    I am rather pessimistic about the change happening soon enough to save the hundreds of thousands (if not a few million) lives that will be mass-murdered as well as horribly injured. My pessimism in this regard, in part derives from the fact that so many in the Anti-Islam Movement (such as it is) are so damn soft about Muslims in a variety of ways, and wring their hands in ethical anxiety every time the issue of deportation comes up for discussion. That’s why I always append Diana West’s wry parenthetical qualifier — (such as it is) — when referencing the Anti-Islam Movement, because it’s not yet really an Anti-Islam Movement for a variety of reasons, all clustered around the ethical and intellectual flabbiness and limp wrists of so many who are otherwise ctiticizing and even condemning Islam and Muslims and thus constituting the “Movement”.

  65. says

    Joking aside, Kepha, sixteenth-century Calvinists (and later ones too) wanted and did destroy priceless medieval art like stained glass Christian depictions, all the while Luther himself and later Lutherans cautioned against such stupid religious histrionics. Sorry to say this, but Calvin kinda’, sorta’, reminds me of Ayatollah Khomeini. I wouldn’t want to live in a world run by Khomeinis or Calvins.

  66. says

    “Indeed, Werner von Braun found an Equal Opportunity Employer in NASA!”

    Indeed, he did, but only after nazi germany no longer excisted, guess you forgot to paste that too, you are and idiot indeed!

  67. says

    Did two different people write your comment? The first paragraph was written by one person in favor of limiting muslim immigration, and the second paragraph by the one, the only, DOI, who defends islam.

    ?????????????

    A rather confusing comment you got there …

  68. says

    “I think Ole Hartling has stumbled into the truth, as his own ridiculously legalistic position illustrates the common sense and wisdom of the opposite position.”

    It is absurd that you call my position *legalistic*, a concept that has no meaning outside a religious paradigm, unless you also identify it with legal positivism – a concept I reject, because you cannot base moral or law on empirical facts. If you do you commit the naturalistic fallacy.

    In Christian theology legalism is a sometimes-pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God’s grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption.

    Throughout the history of Christianity, certain beliefs and practices have tended to draw charges of legalism. These include:

    *Asceticism, such as fasting and other forms of self-denial.

    *The keeping of Christian Sabbath, especially regarding prohibitions of various otherwise innocent activities on the day of worship.

    *Various extra-biblical ordinances and customs that become associated not just with wisdom but with holiness, in the contemporary situation, such as prohibitions against theater, movies, dancing,playing cards, interracial marriage or mixed bathing.

    *Total abstinence from alcohol.

    *Ritualism, a superficial or superstitious use of customary prayers and liturgy.

    *Similarly, certain exclusive ritual practices, such as rigorous insistence on the tetragrammaton as the only name by which God is honored, dietary laws, Saturday Sabbath, or Passover, especially when practicing these rituals is held necessary for salvation.

    *Sacraments, especially when the underlying theology allegedly views them as communicating God’s grace automatically.

    *Various rigorous and restrictive beliefs, such as that, only the King James Version of the Bible constitutes God’s word.

    *The belief that contemporary Christian music, secular music or pop culture is evil.

    *The belief that Christian families should homeschool.

    *The belief that women should never wear pants or shorts.

    *Iconoclasm

    *Circumcision

    *Puritanism

    *Sexual morals

    *Judaizing

    *Restorationism

    *Christian Reconstructionism, which is based on the belief that Christians should still obey and enforce the full Mosaic law.

    In my opinion Islam is even more legalistic than Christianity as one Islamic Scholar explains:

    “Shariah is a common Islamic term, but widely misunderstood and misinterpreted. A society cannot be without some laws or a legal framework. Since Islam’s guidance is in a social context, Islam has some explicit and specifically mandated legal precepts and injunctions. The Qur’an is to serve as the primary and divine source for such guidance. However, Islam is not all law, as life itself can’t be defined and dictated in merely legal terms. Historically, legalism emerged as the dominant mode of thinking and approach among Muslims, where form took precedence over substance and spirit. Due to such legalism, the goals and values related to Islamic guidance gradually faded to the background to the extent that Islam has been reduced to a shell of codes, devoid of spirit, substance and dynamism. In this essay, the traditional (mis)understanding of the term Shariah is explored in depth, and the desired value-orientation is contrasted with the prevailing legalism. A set of values and principles derived directly from the Qur’an is also presented.

    (Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq, Associate Professor of Economics and Finance, Upper Iowa University, USA. October 2006).

    Further comments later …

  69. says

    Boston Tea Party,

    a) I never said Nazism and Communism were not grave dangers. However, the dangers of post-WW2 Nazism constitute peanuts compared with Muslims. Ditto for the KKK.

    b) Your abstract comparison and your opinions about Communism leave untouched the facts of 911 and the countless other mass-murderous plans by fanatical Muslims not only in the US, but around the world. Frankly, I think the U.S. had every right to round up all Communists and deport or detain them indefinitely, and that would not have contravened the Constitution. For a long period of time (1940s through the early 60s), the FBI, NSA and then the CIA were doing good work in ferretting out the dangers; so perhaps the need to scale up the defense wasn’t felt to be dire.

    c) Muslims are remarkably inferior to us on many levels, and this does limit their deadliness. Even with these inherent limitations, the degree of fanaticism of Muslims is capable of inspiring and galvanizing sufficient deadliness to warrant our doing something radical to defend ourselves from it. The fanatical disease of Islam is far more pervasive than Communism or Nazism ever was — about Soviet Communism, one can really say that probably only a minority were “true believers” and that most wanted to get out; and that’s why it fell like a house of cards in the 80s. An intelligent analysis of the data suggests that the same is not true of the Muslim mind and culture.

  70. says

    Actually, it is correct. Jews are not mandated by their religion to impose Sharia law and conquer non-Muslim lands for Islam and extract jizya. President Obama has appointed Muslims and their enablers in positions of authority within governmental agencies to unofficially (for now) enforce Sharia law by regulation, and it must be routed out. Sharia law is in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States.

    We are well-aware of the Islamic concept of tagiyya here.

  71. says

    You’re quite correct, TD. There are strengths to Calvinism and arguably the greatest was stripping man’s soul before God without all the intermediary elements found in Catholicism. This helped paved the way, as you noted, to representative government. I don’t believe America could have been founded as it was by the Catholic world, though the Catholic world has its own strengths. It took the Protestant world, of which Calvinism was a major part, to create the American Republic, arguably Protestantism’s greatest achievement.

  72. says

    Charles Griffith wrote:

    Since [presumably] all of us posters here are outsiders discussing an internal CIA matter, we may be making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
    …………………………….

    It’s true that we don’t have all the details, Charles. But I cannot fathom the position that it is no concern of ours that the CIA’s counterterrorism chief is a convert to the same vile creed that threatens us.

    *At best* this brings his judgment rather sharply into question’to put it mildly”and puts his loyalties into question.

    At worst, of course, it bodes something much darker.

    Also, even if it is the former, his serving in such a high position paves the way and normalizes the idea of Muslims in general in important positions in counterterrorism. Even if “Roger” proves to be relatively benign, I doubt many of his coreligionists will be.

    In any case, it puts us all in greater danger.

  73. says

    Awake wrote:

    The article doesn’t say as far as I can tell, and without knowing that, or who this “Roger” even remotely is, this entire article could be a fabrication, intentional fodder to try to appeal to Muslims and gullible non-Muslims alike, I mean, it’s certainly not out of the plausible speculative realm, for this is the WaPo we’re talking about.

    Does anyone have anything to contribute in this regard?
    ………………………………..

    It’s possible, Awake”but I have to say, I rather doubt it.

    For one thing, were this the case, there would always be the possibility of someone at the CIA exposing the story, even if they spoke “off the record”.

    I just can’t see how this would be terribly strategically useful”it would just alienate sane Westerners like us, and will certainly do nothing to mollify hardcore Jihadists.

    Rather, I imagine it is just what it appears to be”more brainless PC MC, and the lauding of “diversity” at any cost.

  74. says

    Thank you for researching this story further, LemonLime. This news is chilling, and seeing Jennifer with her children punctuates this horrible event. Yeah I smell a rat and his name is “Roger”.

  75. says

    Thanks for the response gravenimage, but my potential conspiracy theory aside, for if you don’t suspect your government of the worst, intentional misinformation, especially supported by the liberal WaPo, you must not be paying attention.

    More importantly, I am interested in when “Roger” “reverted”, since supposedly he was put in place under Bush, and continues in his position under Obama, and I maintain that the article does not say.

    It may mean nothing, but it may mean something. No one else has asked the question in this thread, that’s for sure.

    Do you have any info on my explicit query?

    Regards.

  76. says

    I share your distrust and I indeed support your emphasis on our need for acute alertness to the subversion of Islam in all aspects of our public and not-so-public government offices. I’ve been calling Islam’s tactic of “lawfare”, their emphases on faux victimization and their shrieking of “racism” the “Camel’s Nose Under Our Tent” strategy.

    We need only to look at the prevalence of Islam’s already strong foothold of their “representatives” in Northern Virginia, where English is rapidly becoming the second language. Georgetown University in the District of Columbia is host to a Saudi financed “lobby group”, I forget the name, along with financed madrassas set up for the indoctrination of impressionable male adolescents…on and on.

    A few short years ago my Maryland County successfully thwarted the building of a purported Islamic East Coast Convention Center….for now….and, other precedents abound for dangerous “peaceful” Islam’s thrustings and penetrations of our institutions. They’re very patient.

    Now…..having said the above, we’ve as a nation survived, somehow, the dismaying exposure of Hanssen’s (sic) mole activities inside the FBI for many years with the many deaths he no doubt caused, and also James Angleton’s mole activities of many years from inside the closed confines of our C.I.A. We (the public) will never know the full extent of the damage those two men caused.

    Being burned like this is a two way street. No place is immune. Adversaries such as our current Islamic enemy very much included, and they know this is a two way street…or three way.

    But because of this very mutual awareness I don’t think (in my unwashed, imperfect readings of these treacheries) that the public disclosure of this particular high ranking employee’s conversion to Islam is of itself, and in this context, any more of a threat to the C.I.A. than has long existed and will always.

    I’m satisfied that there’s a lot I don’t know, and that the trained professionals remain on top of these situations….insofar any country’s intelligence agency personnel are able. The U.K.’s Kim Philby and the Cambridge “colleagues” come to mind also.

  77. says

    Awake wrote:

    Thanks for the response gravenimage, but my potential conspiracy theory aside, for if you don’t suspect your government of the worst, intentional misinformation, especially supported by the liberal WaPo, you must not be paying attention.
    …………………………..

    Hi, Awake. While I very much respect our form of government in general, I try to regard all statements from politicians, other government spokespeople, and media with a very critical eye.

    I’m just not sure I see any *specific* reason to doubt this story”although I consider it so important that I plan on keeping alert to any new information on this matter.

    More:

    More importantly, I am interested in when “Roger” “reverted”, since supposedly he was put in place under Bush, and continues in his position under Obama, and I maintain that the article does not say.

    It may mean nothing, but it may mean something. No one else has asked the question in this thread, that’s for sure.

    Do you have any info on my explicit query?
    …………………………..

    I definitely agree with you here”I want to know *when* “Roger” ‘reverted’, as well.

    Was he already a Muslim when he was appointed head of the CIA’s counterterrorism unit? That means our officials are deeply foolish. On the other hand, did he “revert” while holding his current position? That might mean that he was specifically targeted by Muslims.

    I have other questions, as well”how long has he been married? What kind of Muslims are his wife and his wife’s family? At the very least, it seems likely that they were devout enough to demand that “Roger” convert to Islam before marrying into the family.

    What mosque”if any”does he attend? The mosques in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. are some of the most “radical” in the United States. Does he attend a (comparatively) “moderate” mosque, or not? What is his Imam like?

    What is his own record like as a Muslim? Does it seem he converted just to marry his wife and is a nominal Muslim, or is he fervent in embracing Islam?

    Alas, I have no more information than you do”the Washington Post article and random speculations I’ve gleaned from trolling the internet.

    I hope *someone* at the CIA is asking these questions, but in these insanely PC MC days, we simply cannot count on this.

  78. says

    Excellent and erudite post, Charles.

    I only respectfully disagree with you on one point: I do indeed consider it a specifically alarming point that the head of counterterrorism is *himself* a Muslim.

    There is the symbolic, for one thing”this is rather like electing a born Muslim who has not explicitly repudiated Islam to the presidency…oh, wait, we did that as well. Madness.

    But beyond that, it may well have direct, practical effects. The CIA counterterrorism directorship is *not* a ceremonial position. He is privy to information that no other single agent or sub-director will be. If his loyalties are truly in question”as it at least appears they may be”then he is in a position to do a great deal of harm, much more than that of any other figure in the CIA, with the possible exception of the head of the entire agency.

    Good to hear your take on this, in any case.

  79. says

    Thanks for the reply, gravenimage. Whether the story is even remotely true or not, again I don’t want to belabor the point, is essentially irrelevant. Assuming it is, the question I posed, and your subsequent inquiries are indeed most relevant in my estimation.

    What is beyond doubt is the intent of the article, to paint “Roger” as a moderate Muslim, one who can both embrace Islam yet rationalize and formulate the killing of Muslims. In reality, it’s complete hogwash in that regard.

    The intent was clear. That Muslims can be peaceful in their practice, loyal to their host non-Islamic country, and have a firm and sincere hand in the fight against their Muslim brethren who are essentially re-defined as “terrorists” and not really Muslims at all.

    Typical, liberal WaPo bullshit.

    Regards.

  80. says

    Gravenimage

    The article gives the impression that he married his Muslimah – and converted to Islam – fairly early in his career, certainly well before attaining his present position.

    Here’s how the article puts it:

    “His first overseas assignments were in Africa, where the combination of dysfunctional governments, bloody tribal warfare and minimal interference from headquarters provided experience that would prove particularly useful in the post-Sept. 11 world. Many of the agency’s most accomplished counterterrorism operatives, including Black and Richard Blee, cut their teeth in Africa as well.

    “It’s chaotic, and it requires you to understand that and deal with it psychologically,” said a former Africa colleague. Roger developed an “enormous amount of expertise in insurgencies, tribal politics, warfare ” writing hundreds of intelligence reports.”

    “He also married a Muslim woman he met abroad, prompting his conversion to Islam.”

  81. says

    Awake wrote:

    What is beyond doubt is the intent of the article, to paint “Roger” as a moderate Muslim, one who can both embrace Islam yet rationalize and formulate the killing of Muslims. In reality, it’s complete hogwash in that regard.

    The intent was clear. That Muslims can be peaceful in their practice, loyal to their host non-Islamic country, and have a firm and sincere hand in the fight against their Muslim brethren who are essentially re-defined as “terrorists” and not really Muslims at all.

    Typical, liberal WaPo bullshit.
    …………………………….

    I completely agree with your analysis here, Awake.

  82. says

    “Typical, liberal WaPo bullshit.”

    The WaPo is merely breathing in the Western air and breathing out. Utterly unremarkable; because virtually every conservative politician in the entire West would agree that 1) there exist multitudes of decent, harmless, productive Muslims all over the world; and that therefore 2) there is no necessary conflict of interest in the fact of a CIA counterterrorism chief (or anyone else in the West in or out of government) converting to Islam.

    A handful of conservatives may harbor semi-conscious misgivings about this mantra; but usually the PC MC in their bloodstream overpowers those misgivings.