Tefft: The "War on Terror" and the use of the terms "Islamofascism" or "radical Islam" are basic examples of faulty nomenclature. One terrorism is a tactic, used by an enemy. One wages war on the enemy, not the tactic. During WWII we did not wage war on the "blitzkrieg" or "kamikaze pilots" -- we fought a war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japanese. We are fighting a 14-century year old war against Islam and its adherents, Muslims. And it is a war that they have declared on all non-Muslims as part of their religious mandate, their ideology, to make the whole world Islamic, under the Caliphate, and to convert, kill or enslave all non-Muslims.

Oh Snap this guy need to be put in shackles.
You cant say this kind of thing, next thing you know they will start talking about a helio centric solar system

Posted by: GrennBeck at October 28, 2007 7:51 AM

That interview is a real gem of an article. I find Tefft impressive. I have never before see such a succinct and clearly stated summary of the origins and fundamentals of the Islamic belief system and of the current pathetic state of our defense against it.

Posted by: Stendec at October 28, 2007 8:41 AM

Typical reward for doing a good Job.

It is not Mr. Teffts work that created the alleged hostile enviroment. It is the substance of his reasearch and the possible reaction to it by Infidels requesting the Data.

The Plantive only needs to claim Mr. Teffts' work to be false to bring a suit. Mr. Tefft needs to introduce the Korans teachings as evidence in support of his work. Let the Court decide if Arabic has been properly translated all these years.

Has this case recieved much publicity in the past? If this case is almost 2 years old, it is odd that it hasn't been used to slime the NYPD with Islamophibia. Umless the rammifications of a Courts Decision affirming the hostility of the Koran to non-beleivers be so strong that the MSM are unwilling to touch it. Fearing the complete meltdown of Multi-Cultural Dogma in Western Society.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 28, 2007 8:47 AM

That is a powerful and honest interview.

Posted by: Goob at October 28, 2007 11:26 AM

Robert,
In the Frontpage interview with Bruce Tefft, the interviewer makes the following statement:

"Well sir, again, it is not Muslims that are the problem. Islam is the problem. There are many Muslims who want a modernized and democratic Islam – Salim Mansur, Thomas Haidon, Kamal Nawash and Mustafa Akyol are among them. And these reformers and moderates oppose the extremists in their religion just as much as any one us."

You have asked Dinesh DeSouza to name some "moderate muslims" with whom we can ally (or something to that effect, and Dinesh, it seems, has been unable to name any. Here, Frontpage has supplied a list of four "moderates." Do these names ring a bell? Would you consider them "moderates" of any import?

And thank you for keeping up the good fight!

Posted by: cumulusnine at October 28, 2007 11:39 AM

It is sad to me that Jamie would take this timid tack...he has interviewed Serge Trfkovic and I would have though that might have impressed him enough.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at October 28, 2007 3:21 PM

This guy should be in charge of Homeland Security.

This Tefft is a man of honour and courage.

God bless America.

Posted by: dgene at October 28, 2007 4:18 PM

Bruce Tefft is a national treasure and worth defending to the death.
It's this 5th column plant, this enemy within, that should be dispatched post haste, end of story.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 28, 2007 7:03 PM

I wish there were an anti-Jihad answer to CAIR. CAIR has Saudi money and zealous staff lawyers. It can sue anyone and afford to burn through a lot of money. People without Gulf State money cannot do that. CAIR knows that, which is why they go after people who cannot afford a decent defense. It is unlikely that our legal system will adjust and simply not allow any CAIR or other Islamist group-backed lawsuits to proceed. So the poor individual who is targeted for destruction by CAIR is in trouble.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at October 28, 2007 9:54 PM

There are...problem is the MSM are too enthralled with their CAIRgasms to bother with anything else, and viciously protects against even hints at exposing their own alliance of collusion.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 28, 2007 11:04 PM

What a very interesting discussion on Front Page.

In a nutshell it's the argument which is going on within conservatism today.

Bruce Telft argues that it (Islam) "does not permit its follower to cherry-pick which parts they believe in. The requirement to accept the Koran as the literal word of God also carries with it the obligation to accept it all. And as you say, the Koran instructs all Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and all schools of Islamic thought instruct the subjugation of the non-Muslim world through jihad.

Jamie Glazov follows a short time later with:

"Pipes profoundly notes that Islam can be what its believers make it, they “can decide afresh what jihad signifies, what rights women have, what role government should play, what forms of interest on money should be banned, plus much else.”

Though J.G. makes some good points elsewhere, I think this is his weakest argument even though the formidable Richard Pipes shares it.

On the face of it it seems eminently reasonable to western rationalists to take this ala-carte approach to religion. But Islam is not just another religion and the Qur'an not just another Bible form (though it steals copiously from the Bible and apes it in many respects).

When a Holy Book is clearly written and authoritatively stated to be the literal word(s) of The Almighty Himself, then one has a monumental task trying to cajole or convince committed followers of that CLOSED belief system to take it or leave (sections of) it as they see fit, especially when 'leaving it' means a death sentence in the eyes of those who are still fervently attached to it.

Islam means "Total Submission" of its followers to the literal word of Allah as transmitted by the Almighty directly to Muhammad and set down word for word in the Qur'an.

How much 'wiggle room' is left in that construct?
I'm not optimistic.

Posted by: alexon at October 29, 2007 12:09 AM

I honestly think that Naziism and Communism are more amenable to reform than Islam. I would like to think otherwise but just can't honestly see it.

It's time for the Multitudes of Millions of Moderates within Islam (the ones we keep hearing a lot about but not much from) to rise up and take charge of this movement to create a "kinder, gentler" Islam.

Good Luck! (sincerely so. I doubt its possible but would love to be proved wrong).

Posted by: alexon at October 29, 2007 12:24 AM

The plaintiffs and their financiers in this legal jihad lawsuit know full well that, even if Mr. Tefft wins the suit, he will have been forced to suffer for his efforts. The cost of winning a dismissal is great, and that cost is born by the defendant, even if the defendant is successful. (The American system of jurisprudence only allows an award of attorney fees against a losing plaintiff in the most extreme circumstances.)

This is why a "Strategic Suit Against Public Participation," also known as a SLAPP suit, is so often effective in shutting up citizen volunteers.

Civil rights legislation may have its place generally, but one has to acknowledge that legislation intended to merely shield members of a group subjected to unfair discrimination can quickly be turned into a weapon against anyone who would subject someone in that group to appropriate inquiry. Legislation intended to create an even playing field has the unintended consequence of giving an advantage to the protected group.

In Bruce Tefft's case, civil rights legislation is even being used as a weapon to prevent inquiry into the belief system (Islam) of the protected group (Muslims).

So long as Islam is protected by civil rights legislation, every infidel seeking to teach others about the negatives of Islam is subject to being forced to pay a jizya tax on his or her exercise of free speech, in the form of paying for the defense of legal jihad litigation.

If successful, the litigation against Tefft will also affect the law enforcement community which had previously received and read his emails, ensuring that they are more likely to be shielded from such knowledge to prevent such litigation, and in fact are forced to attend seminars teaching that Islam is Peace, etc. To be forewarned is to be forearmed, but to be kept ignorant is to be kept defenseless.

So long as law enforcement personnel themselves may be sued under civil rights legislation for taking religion into account in following up on law enforcement hunches, even if the hunches or suspicions are based on valid logic. By including Islam under the protections of civil rights legislation, we thereby hamstring law enforcement efforts as well.

It is time to amend our civil rights legislation so as to end the civil rights protections for Islam, especially where it bears on law enforcement.

Posted by: Karl at October 29, 2007 2:30 AM

I meant to say:
So long as law enforcement personnel themselves may be sued under civil rights legislation for taking religion into account in following up on law enforcement hunches, even if the hunches or suspicions are based on valid logic, they will be handicapped in their efforts. They may even be hailed into court and required to reveal sources and methods which are best kept confidential.

Posted by: Karl at October 29, 2007 2:46 AM

What a really fine interview. Many thanks to Frontpage and Mr Tefft.

Posted by: ewha1 at October 29, 2007 6:21 AM

Thanks to this website and a burning desire to try and understand what and who our enemy is, I did not find anything in the interview that surprised me or that I disagreed with.

What I find disturbing is that a HUGE and disproportionate amount of "well meaning" partially or totally uniformed people will never be able to wrap their minds around Mr Tefft's statements.

Therefore as he alluded to, this is going to be a long and expensive world wide war of attrition.

I'm reminded of President Bush's statement just after 9/11, "Your either with us or your against us". Truer words were never spoken, which begs the question, how can a Muslim be a moderate and not be against us.

A rewrite of the koran is a ridiculous daydream.

Posted by: winemkr at October 29, 2007 12:22 PM

Karl, you are exactly right! Thank you for your cogent analysis and come back often (I've not seen you post before but I was away for a week or two recently).

Posted by: alexon at October 29, 2007 12:26 PM

Remember it is a constitutional right to plan and conduct terrorist attacks. You can only arrest them after the fact. Since they were killed in the attack you can not do anything about it. Otherwise they are not guilty of any crime but planning. So they are innocent victims of the racist islamphobia culture of the US.
Look at the court cases that have failed always seem to be using the courts to prevent protecting US Citizens from future attacks on the grouds of racism.
Our society will fail unless steps are made to allow arrest and convictions to stand for those who support terrorism in what ever guise. To many people support terrorism by hiding under names that make them think you are helping people. Yes helping them arm themselves to kill more innocent people. Plus the politicians that go way out of their way to protect selective groups using racism as a excuse.
Terrorists or religions do not not have a right to force their life style on everyone else. Religion is a freed of choice. Peaceful communication sharing beliefs is a right. Killing to force others to follow your beliefs is not a right.
Peace can only happen if honest open communication can take place. THe sharing of ideas. Those who use fear and terror to convert or teach hate of one group or another to their children preventing them from seeing the world in a clear honest viewpoint. only makes the problem worse. Defending evil done in the name of a religion by silence does not show you do not support it. It is silence that makes it appear that you support all the evil done in the name of your religion. Muslim Religious leaders are very guilty of this. Whether it is by fear or because they believe that is the way it should be I do not know. Those few who dare speak out against the evil done in the name of their religion have their lives threatened.
So they must use the courts to prevent those who look and monitor activities that could show that they do support terrorism within the US.
So I guess it must be in the Constitution the right to plan and kill because our courts say so. When the question should be is this racism or self preservation. Do terrorist have the right to plan and conduct operations in the US. Can terrorist put explosives and weapons in a car. Get caught and claim someone else must have put it there. That they are innocent. OR are these victims of terrorists wanting to find weak spots to do future attacks. It is a hard question to answer. No easy answer.

Posted by: David Anfinrud at October 29, 2007 1:11 PM

Good Points David. If only everyone were as sensible....

Posted by: alexon at October 30, 2007 9:17 PM