| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Stephen Coughlin Update. Here is an excellent summary piece on Coughlin's firing, its implications, and what must be done next.
Objective: The objective of this paper is to clarify the incidents surrounding the firing of Mr. Coughlin, and enumerate the implications of this event to U.S. National Security and the GWOT (Global War on Terror).Background: Mr. Stephen Coughlin works as a contractor on the Joint Staff, J-2 (Intelligence) for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. The Joint Staff specifically requested him because of his knowledge of Islamic Doctrine as it applies to “Jihad” and the Strategic objectives of our enemy. He is, by many accounts, the leading expert on Islamic Doctrinal drivers of Jihad within the U.S. Government, and likely, in the United States. His thesis, “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad,” was recently accepted by the National Defense Intelligence College, and deals specifically with Islamic Doctrine dealing with doctrinal drivers of jihad, and the failure of the United States leadership to learn and understand this doctrine. He has a background in Law and international business. Mr. Coughlin is also a Major in the U.S. Army Reserves, and was activated after 9/11 to serve as a Strategic Targeting Officer for the U.S. forces. He has taught, lectured, and briefed senior members of DoD, members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials, and many law enforcement and intelligence officers in the United States. He is a regular briefer at the Information/Operations course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the Joint Forces Staff College. He has briefed at the Navy War College and the Marine Corps War College, and recently briefed the General Officers of I MEF, United States Marine Corps.
Event: Via a campaign undertaken by Hesham Islam, the senior advisor for International Affairs to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, on Thursday, January 3, 2008 Mr. Coughlin was told by his employers that his contract would not be renewed due to the fact his message, and therefore he himself, had become too “politically hot.” In a meeting between Mr. Coughlin and a member of Mr. England’s staff, at which Hesham Islam unexpectedly attended, Mr. Islam asked Mr. Coughlin to “soften his message” regarding Islamic Doctrine. Mr. Coughlin refused. Islam was heard referring to Coughlin as a “Christian zealot with a poison pen.” Despite the fact that no one in his chain of command has disputed the veracity, accuracy, and balance for his thesis, lectures, or briefings, Coughlin’s employment is being terminated for speaking the truth to the Department of Defense.
Analysis: This event on its own reveals that a senior U.S. advisor is being removed from his direct and critical role in the current war in which we are engaged solely because his message was defined as “extreme” by an advisor who caters to Islamist organizations in the U.S., not because it was factually incorrect. This alone seems significantly problematic given the current war in which we are engaged. Additionally, some of the details suggest Mr. Coughlin’s civil rights, to include his First and Forth Amendment rights, as well as federal law, may have been violated, which suggests an inquiry is required. The effort to silence Mr. Coughlin came from a senior advisor to a senior U.S. official under official cover – a violation of law. Most disturbing is that Mr. Islam is associated with groups and organizations which have been designated as Muslim Brotherhood organizations within the United States. If this is in fact true, the implications are devastating.
Implications: If it is determined that Mr. Islam (whose clearances to be handling such high level issues are unsubstantiated) was acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood or any other non-state sponsor or nation, it would indicate a direct effort to thwart the U.S. effort in fighting the war in which we are engaged by an outside entity. This is, therefore, a penetration of our government at the most senior levels. In this case we are obligated to undertake actions to determine, who is Mr. Islam, why was he hired, what are his true intentions, and are there others in our government at this level who have penetrated other U.S. government agencies.
Actions: It is recommended that the following actions be taken immediately:
1) It is imperative that an investigation be open to determine the facts of this matter. If the investigation determines the facts of the matter to be true, provide the extent of the penetration within DoD, an assessment of the damage, potential violations of federal law, and recommended changes to Department policy and procedures to prevent a recurrence.
2) Conduct closed Congressional Hearings to provide oversight of Federal Departments and Agencies, specifically DoD, DNI, FBI, CIA and DHS to determine if there has been (1) a significant penetration of US Government Departments and/or Agencies by non-state actors hostile to the United States, and (2) the ability and structure of the U.S. counterintelligence efforts to identify and prevent penetration by subversive movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Posted by Robert at January 12, 2008 8:01 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The evidence is unequivocal. Mr. Coughlin should be Secretary of Defense!
Posted by: David England![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 12, 2008 8:16 AM
Robert,
Why no source for this paper? Published? Author?
Oversight?
Or shouldn't we ask?
Also, Hannity & Colmes had Steve Emerson on last night reporting on this.
Neither H or C understood the implications of firing Coughlin because of his message being "too politically hot". Rather, they concentrated on Emerson's belief that an Islamist is in the Pentagon and was involved in the firing. "You mean the Pentagon is lying to us? " said Colmes.
Posted by: USorThem at January 12, 2008 8:33 AM
In the Nazi Reich, Germans were required to believe that their country had the right to seize sovereign territory for their own "living space."
Under the Fascist Duce, Italians were required to believe that the leader represented the congealed will of the people.
In Stalinist Soviet Union, Russians and occupied peoples were required to believe that everyone was free and equal.
Under Jesuit social administration, members and conscripts were required to believe that "that which is really black is actually white, if the church hierarchy (read: caesaropope) so dictates."
In Bush-Zombamerica anti-evolutionist hordes are required to believe that ISLAM-IS-PEACE, and that fellow Abrahamists - muslims - have noble, personal salvation through prayer as their life purpose.
It is heresy to say: Bush was, is and will be, a FRAUD, and his supporters are mental slaves with the collective critical capacity of a flat worm. (And that includes Charles Johnson and his LGF-Kos mirror-images)
When stupidity prospers, none have the intelligence to discern their own stupidity.
Posted by: supercargo at January 12, 2008 8:48 AM
The evidence is unequivocal. Mr. Coughlin should be Secretary of Defense!
Posted by: David England at January 12, 2008 8:16 AM
I think Robert Spencer should hold that position.
Then, I'd feel safe.
Posted by: darcy at January 12, 2008 8:53 AM
"To Our Great Detriment": Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad - by Stephen C. Coughlin, Esq.
Print it . . .read it. . . pass it around, starting with your Congressmen and Senators.
DEMAND AN INQUIRY into the shenanigans of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and his much cherished "key aid", "interlocutor" and "personal, close confidante", this Egyptian-born, Arabic-speaking Muslim Cmdr. Hesham Islam (USN ret.) whose particular anti-Christian bigotry exposed the treason within.
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at January 12, 2008 8:54 AM
SHOCK NEWS - Islam penetrates U.S. government agencies at highest level.
at January 12, 2008 8:57 AM
"Implications: ....This is, therefore, a penetration of our government at the most senior levels. In this case we are obligated to undertake actions to determine, who is Mr. Islam, why was he hired, what are his true intentions, and are there others in our government at this level who have penetrated other U.S. government agencies".-Robert
This is a realistic concern. Islam's tactics are the same as those used by Kim Philby and Co. against their critics. Coughlin would have found himself in the same situation with Philby.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby
at January 12, 2008 9:05 AM
So what do we do? Write our Congressmen and Senators? Politicians do not seem to have the ability to do anything decent, reasonable or intelligent. How do we can bypass them?
JBS
Posted by: J. Brian at January 12, 2008 9:17 AM
I just sent a copy of the enumerations to the Joint Chief of Staff. I've also sent email to my Congressman, Senators, Vice President, and to the Secretary of State. This is too important to let pass. The government is infiltrated by peopple whose ultimate aim is to implement Sharia law. This is a direct effort to eliminate our Constitution. It's just the way it is. This is too important to not do anything. We have to organize and have a stronger political will than Islamists do. If not... They will win in the long-run.
Posted by: antishock8 at January 12, 2008 9:20 AM
Both England and Islam should be removed from their positions, have their security clearances pulled, and should be barred from future federal employment.
I am writing to my senators and my congressman to demand an investigation on enemy penetration of the Defense Department in particular, and of the Executive Branch generally. The above well-written list of charges and actions, whoever wrote it, is quite helpful in that project.
Posted by: Stendec at January 12, 2008 9:30 AM
I wrote to my Senator last week. His office actually called me back to assure me the Senator was aware of the incident and was going to look into it further. Haven't heard back but I feel my email and maybe 1-2 or 3 others may get this story the correct attention.
All who follow this story should also write.
Posted by: USorThem at January 12, 2008 9:41 AM
Getting some coverage on Hannity and Colmes is better than nothing. We can write our local congressman, Our talk show hosts,local newspapers and encourage them to do follow up and take a close look at Bill Gertz articles on this,as well as Frank Gaffney Jr. and Diana West, And we can be sure that Steve Emerson carries considerable influence in the various halls.Let them know that other writers are getting on the bandwagon. The actions of antishock8 above may reap unknown rewards as well. Don't hesitate to Email the White House as well, even if you don't think it will get attention, if enough of us do it, we can send up a red light to the staff that looks at these.
comments@whitehouse.gov.
Posted by: Mackie at January 12, 2008 9:43 AM
Conduct closed Congressional Hearings to provide oversight of Federal Departments and Agencies, specifically DoD, DNI, FBI, CIA and DHS to determine if there has been (1) a significant penetration of US Government Departments and/or Agencies by non-state actors hostile to the United States...
This is already the case. The only question is: how many more like Mr. Islam have infiltrated our government and who has let them in (traitors like Gordon England).
Posted by: Seymour Paine at January 12, 2008 9:47 AM
I am sick of kissing the butts of the Muslims. They need to realize that they aren't the only people in the world who matters. Coughlin shouldn't have been fired, he should have been applauded. It is high time that the muslims get called on their bullcrap. They are rude, they complain all of the time, they like to play the victim even when they have committed some horrible crime. They should get some tougher skin. If they don't like the west, then they shouldn't be allowed to live in the west. They should learn to tolerate others opinions and culture just like they constantly command everyone else in the world to do for them.
They don't like it when the truth comes out. They are all hiding something and they are sneaky. I don't think that their ways belong in the western countries. I think that they should get a grip on the world and learn the phrase "sticks and stones".
It isn't our fault that most of the terrorism is caused by the middle east. It is theirs, but they find it easier to control us by accussing us of racism and whatnot. If they don't like it, they should go home NOW.
Posted by: joeyindc at January 12, 2008 9:52 AM
#3...and don't take three years doing #1.and 2.
Posted by: duh_swami at January 12, 2008 9:56 AM
Here are some of the people so far that have written, or reflected on the Bill Gertz story about the Stephen Coughlin firing.
,Bill Gertz,-Diana West,-Frank Gaffney Jr.,-Clifford May,-Jerry Gordon,-Robert Spencer,-Andrew Boston,-and Steve Emerson,-
Posted by: Mackie at January 12, 2008 10:13 AM
You can forget about Congressional hearings. That only happens if a Male soldier oggles a Female soldier -- a far more dangerous threat to our national security than an Islamic Mole.
Besides, who in a Democratically controlled Congress wants to confront Mr. Islam about his Islamic sexist and anti-Semetic religious doctrines. Those kind of confrontations are better reserved for Bible-thumping, Christian extremists -- the real threat to our way of life.
Posted by: rational
at January 12, 2008 10:15 AM
Given the breadth of his experience, Mr. Coughlin also should be considered for Secretary of State. He could probably get that department ready for the battle.
Coughlin at State and Robert at Defense would make quite a team! Steve Emerson could back up either one of them.
at January 12, 2008 10:15 AM
I think that the hiring of this Mr. Islam may reflect deals with the Saudis that were arranged at a level much higher up the ladder than SecDef. I think it goes all the way to the White House. Undersecretary England is merely carrying out his orders. If any of you readers of JihadWatch who are military veterans can attest, chain of command is like the first principle of the Defense Department. When you are in the military, every unit has a section of its news board that has the specific chain of command posted. Going all up the line.
The hiring of Mr. Islam is no accident. If DoD is penetrated, it is so because the White House is penetrated.
at January 12, 2008 10:18 AM
"I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave."
King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993
Owner: King Fahd, Guardian of al-Haramain, Tyrant of the Saud Terrorist Entity; Patron of all Wahabi terrorists; Cockroach in Human Form
Slave: President George Walker Bush, dypso puppet of Saudi string pullers; politically and religiously nearsighted whore to his Saudi pimps; abandoner of Israel; protector of Kosovo and Bosnian terrorists and drug merchants; indulger of Helmond (Afghanistan) heroin industry; facilitator of future Ayatollah ICBMs, aimed at the US Homeland; future ribbon cutter at a Saudi financed university in his name.
Posted by: supercargo at January 12, 2008 10:33 AM
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Robert.
A muslim weasel with a last name of 'islam'.
Gee, who said it was hard to find the good guys from the bad ?
Posted by: dgene at January 12, 2008 10:37 AM
The Implications of the Dismissal of Stephen Coughlin, Joint Staff, Pentagon
Implications are the defeat of America and the rise of Islamo-fascism with the help of Bush and his left right Globlaist forces fifth column deception is going well ,the dumbed down sheeple are well verese in O.J. but clueless as to the grave danger we are in thanks to our corrupt,deviant leaders.
This was so good from supercargo ,I posted it again.
In the Nazi Reich, Germans were required to believe that their country had the right to seize sovereign territory for their own "living space."
Under the Fascist Duce, Italians were required to believe that the leader represented the congealed will of the people.
In Stalinist Soviet Union, Russians and occupied peoples were required to believe that everyone was free and equal.
Under Jesuit social administration, members and conscripts were required to believe that "that which is really black is actually white, if the church hierarchy (read: caesaropope) so dictates."
In Bush-Zombamerica anti-evolutionist hordes are required to believe that ISLAM-IS-PEACE, and that fellow Abrahamists - muslims - have noble, personal salvation through prayer as their life purpose.
It is heresy to say: Bush was, is and will be, a FRAUD, and his supporters are mental slaves with the collective critical capacity of a flat worm. (And that includes Charles Johnson and his LGF-Kos mirror-images)
When stupidity prospers, none have the intelligence to discern their own stupidity.
Posted by: rocketman at January 12, 2008 10:40 AM
I was not aware. Thank you for the information.
Posted by: Silly Allah at January 12, 2008 10:44 AM
"... are there others ...?" Well, let me submit the name of President G. W. Bush for your consideration.
Posted by: Havoc at January 12, 2008 10:53 AM
A billion thanks, supercargo.
I'd been looking for the quote.
So, I'll plagarise you.
""I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave."
King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993
Boy, is that not chilling or what.
Truly truly scary.
That should be memorised by, well, everyone. I always laugh when people talk of the nonsensical Jewish cabal pulling the strings in Washington.
It's the oil, stupid
Posted by: ewha1 at January 12, 2008 11:07 AM
This is not the illustration I was searching for...but it is pretty accurate.
http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/bush-prays.jpg
If anyone out there can locate "how George Bush will save us from islam" - you know the picture of him in his moslem prayer pose, post it.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 12, 2008 11:13 AM
Oh, my. First, you forgot the attribution, unless it's your own work, which would be a bit odd considering how you introduced it.
Whoever wrote it used a common technique in agit-prop, which is combining accepted facts with out and out speculation, and a few completely false or unknowable statements.
The most offensive part is when the author implies two facts not in evidence and completely without merit: 1 - that Islam was privy to classified information above his clearance level (which is complete BS - everyone involved in J2 has TS/SCI, at a minimum), and 2 - that Islam is a traitor to the U.S. Both outrageous claims, but typical of a Robert Spenser or a Bill Gertz.
How completely and utterly pathetic.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 12, 2008 11:19 AM
"his contract would not be renewed due to the fact his message, and therefore he himself, had become too “politically hot.”
...just wait until the dhimmified public, who upon failing to combat militant Islam, has to taste hot lead from an Islamic radically fired AK-47.....everyone would lose more than a job, they would lose their heritage, their culture, their religion, and most likely their lives....
...sometime you must be "politically hot" to alert the others who may become "hot lead dead"...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 12, 2008 11:21 AM
G E N E R A L
B I L L Y
M I T C H E L L
R E T U R N S !!
at January 12, 2008 11:22 AM
Thank you Jeffery. Another bafflingly nonsensical comment.
The "Roger Irrelevent" of JW.
http://www.viz.co.uk/archive_strips/motorised_strips/viztv_popup_irrelevant.html
Posted by: ewha1 at January 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Jeffrey Carr:
Oh, my. First, you forgot the attribution, unless it's your own work, which would be a bit odd considering how you introduced it.
It is not my own work, but I did not forget the attribution. I deliberately left it off.
Whoever wrote it used a common technique in agit-prop, which is combining accepted facts with out and out speculation, and a few completely false or unknowable statements.
Completely false? Unknowable? Neither. It appears that you missed the Implications and Actions sections. This is a call for an investigation, or actually several investigations, into facts that are not presently known but are by no means unknowable.
The most offensive part is when the author implies two facts not in evidence and completely without merit: 1 - that Islam was privy to classified information above his clearance level (which is complete BS - everyone involved in J2 has TS/SCI, at a minimum), and 2 - that Islam is a traitor to the U.S. Both outrageous claims, but typical of a Robert Spenser or a Bill Gertz.
It's "Spencer."
Those are not claims of fact, those are points on which the author of this is calling for investigation.
Do you know the difference?
Do you, finally, have anything of substance to contribute here, or is it your plan simply to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks? I don't mind substantive disagreement, but your constant charges that I am somehow operating in bad faith are based only, as here, on your (willful?) misreadings and forced interpretations of what I and others write.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 12, 2008 11:41 AM
"...everyone involved in J2 has TS/SCI,...."
....spies, the really good ones (and they don't really have a hard time getting access to secure and confidential information) can get TS/SCI.....just recently:
Illegal immigrant FBI/CIA agent married to State Dept employee who held sensitive posts in Middle East embassies
Nada Nadim Prouty Update: Not only is she an illegal immigrant who was hired by the CIA and the FBI. Not only was she then given access to Al-Qaeda detainees in Iraq. Not only is she now accused of passing information to Hizballah. Not only is her brother-in-law now on the lam after being indicted for funneling money from his restaurant chain to Hizballah. Not only did that restaurant chain sponsor the Arab American Institute conference that was addressed by (on video) Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, (and in person) Richardson, Kucinich, and Ron Paul. Not only all that, but also, she is married to a State Department wonk who has held key positions in Middle Eastern embassies.
"Jihad Jane's 'State' of Bliss," by Susan Edelman and Jill Culora in the New York Post:
November 18, 2007 -- FBI fraudster Nada Nadim Prouty not only used a sham marriage to get jobs with access to secret terrorist intelligence - her current husband is a State Department employee who has held sensitive posts in Middle Eastern embassies, The Post has learned.
Her third hubby, Gordon Prouty, 40, now works for the State Department in Washington, a spokesman confirmed Friday night. He had been stationed at American embassies in Egypt and Pakistan.
A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, refused to comment on Gordon Prouty's job, or say whether he was under investigation along with his criminal wife.
"He's not charged with any wrongdoing in this case," Boyd said.
But the revelation surprised national security watchdogs.
"My God, she's married to one of our people," said Mike Cutler, a former US immigration special agent.
Nada Prouty, 37, admitted last week she faked her first marriage to a Michigan man in 1990, enabling her to get US citizenship that helped her secure jobs with the FBI and CIA. Her star as an agent rose, and officials trusted her to grill al Qaeda sympathizers.
She also confessed to sneaking into government databases for secret information on her sister and brother-in-law, both linked to the Middle East terror group Hezbollah....
Gordon Prouty was a foreign service officer under Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In 1999, he transferred from Cairo to Islamabad, Pakistan, a State Department document shows.
The duties of a foreign service officer can include investigation of people applying for visas to enter the United States and protection of American citizens abroad....
Harvey Kushner, a criminal-justice professor and terrorism expert at Long Island University, said it's likely authorities are looking at the Prouty marriage. "If they're husband and wife, it would be important to see what involvement he had with records, his travels, his behavior, his contacts," Kushner said.
Posted by Robert at November 18, 2007 11:57 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del
at January 12, 2008 11:47 AM
Well, lookee here, Jeff Carr, lead singer of the famous 50's a capella group, The Four Stages, has come to sing us a song about his anti-jihad expertise with commentary.
Jeff has found a place to vent his frustrations here at JW. He knows something is deeply wrong with Islam. He can't figure out what that is. He has impressed many with his 4 stages of radicalization theory but cannot understand why it so many jihadist defy his theory and just want to skip stages 1, 2 and 3 and jump right to stage 4.
Keep coming back though Jeff, your epiphany could be any day now.
at January 12, 2008 11:50 AM
"Both outrageous claims, but typical of a Robert Spenser or a Bill Gertz.
posted by J. carr
Wow, when he gets mad that Arabic "S" just sneaks out.
"Spenser"
Freudian keyboard error.
Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 12, 2008 11:53 AM
Would someone detail for me what would happen, and why would it be so wrong if the Brotherhood actually did penetrate the DoD?
The DoD are not a nursery school full of defenseless children. And how long would this "penetration" continue? Would staff and civilian personell at the Pentagon continue to conduct business as usual, oblivious to this obvious act of willful penetration? If all said parties are of legal age and consent to this act of "penetration," am I as a member of concerned citizens suppose to get on a horse and ride around town to my neighbors, and we all get on our horses brandishing menacing loaded Remington 1100's as we ride off vigilante-style to ... where?
What the gadzooks am I or is anyone suppose to do upon hearing this?
I declare Jethro, if this is so outrageous then just let the chips fall where they may, and if and when some kind of mess happens, we will all stay home and simply let someone else clean it up.
There's nothing I or any other peon-ic citizen can do about such things.
(I sure wish jihadwatch.org/ employed emoticons right about now ...! -|)
Posted by: k24anson at January 12, 2008 12:02 PM
Jeffrey Carr:
Implying, or even the mere suggestion of improprieties does not rise to factually known, and established evidence in the case of Hashem Islam. The authors are not necessarily making assumptions either in the noted article.
The note that there may be an association b/t particular Muslim groups comes with the comment (if this is true). Implications are practical and reasonable in this time of war (undeclared). They are just that, implications that can call for an up and down investigation to the background of certain persons.
Mr. Hashem Islam should welcome such an investigation so that t a cloud of suspicion does not hang over his head.
Posted by: Mackie at January 12, 2008 12:10 PM
This would be the same Jeffrey Carr who appealed to phony "Rev" Jim Sutter this time last week to discredit Robert Spencer? The same Jeffrey Carr who believes Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald are the same person?
And yet it appears that Carr's only expertise is having been in the Coast Guard several decades ago. Yes, a highly qualified intelligence analyst we're dealing with here!
I note on his micro-blog that Carr keeps repeating this mantra that Stephen Coughlin is among the "Islam is evil" crowd (he's even thrown LTC Joe Myers in that camp now, too), and yet he had utterly failed to document the claim. Time to put up or shut up, Jeff.
Posted by: scanderbeg at January 12, 2008 12:10 PM
From Mr Einstein above:"Why would it be so wrong if the Brotherhood actually did penetrate the DoD?"
Wow. That's a toughie. Ooooooh. You'll have to let me think about that one. Let me see. Hmmmmmm.
Don't tell me. You're related to "Jeffery" aren't you. The firm grasp upon reality was the give away.
at January 12, 2008 12:12 PM
Boy, Steven Emerson really blew it last night on Hannity & Colmes, when the latter conducted a richly sardonic interview of Emerson, his questions openly implying that Emerson was a nut-ball conspiracy theorist.
"So, Mr. Emerson, are you saying that Islamic Jihad is running a broad-based conspiracy inside the the Pentagon? (Sneer.)
Now, to be sure Alan Colmes is a self-serving moron, but the show should have given Emerson more than 5-second time boxes in which to answer each question.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 12, 2008 12:14 PM
I am sure Jeffery only comes here so his own site goes from 1 hit a day to 5.
Anyone who makes the claim that Christian “extremist” and Islamic jihadist
are one and the same, is suffering from a extreme case of cranial rectal inversion and should only be approached with extreme caution.
at January 12, 2008 12:17 PM
BurgerBoy:"I am sure Jeffery only comes here so his own site goes from 1 hit a day to 5."
Well I fell for that one so I guess I nudged his meter into the heady and giddy half dozen zone. We're talking nose bleeds at that altitude.
But, I'm confused. From the photo of his "so hot it's boiling" webpage is Jeffery the hairy god or the schmuck with the goggles?
Mut or schmcuk? The big Q.
Posted by: ewha1 at January 12, 2008 12:28 PM
BurgerBoy:"I am sure Jeffery only comes here so his own site goes from 1 hit a day to 5."
Well I fell for that one so I guess I nudged his meter into the heady and giddy half dozen zone. We're talking nose bleeds at that altitude.
But, I'm confused. From the photo of his "so hot it's boiling" webpage is Jeffery the hairy dog or the schmuck with the goggles?
Mut or schmcuk? The big Q.
Posted by: ewha1 at January 12, 2008 12:29 PM
Folks, my imagination seemed to get the better of me with that last post, so let me summarize those last thoughts a bit. I'm as serious as cancer now.
George and his crew are attempting to install an appreciation for democratic, Republican-style forms of government into the Middle East. Think about how George and his crew are attempting to bring this about by the events taking place.
If he appears to be straying and going about doing this in an incorrect manner, go get yourself or your favorite candidate elected and have him or her go about attempting to bring a large body of people to appreciate a government system of free people.
And if what George does seems dangerous? Well, 'tis life, is it not? An adventure it is.
I speak my thoughts now as a bystander, watching the game, the show from the sidelines.
Posted by: k24anson at January 12, 2008 12:32 PM
BurgerBoy:"I am sure Jeffery only comes here so his own site goes from 1 hit a day to 5."
Well I fell for that one so I guess I nudged his meter into the heady and giddy half dozen zone. We're talking nose bleeds at that altitude, folks.
But I'm confused. From the photo of his "so hot it's boiling" webpage, is Jeffery the hairy dog or the schmuck with the goggles?
Mutt or schmuck?
The big Q.
Posted by: ewha1 at January 12, 2008 12:32 PM
The curse of the triple post returns
Posted by: ewha1 at January 12, 2008 12:35 PM
Again, hear we have confirmation why the Founding Fathers thought of the Electorial College system: the populace are fickle, and easily swayed by any wind of doctrine.
Posted by: k24anson at January 12, 2008 12:40 PM
What is funny about all of this is that the mere mention of Islamic text to explain historical and modern Jihad in context throws most liberals into complete cerebral neuro-shock. It also by the way thows most Muslims into fits .. like their dirty little secret is out of the bag. Well Mr. Couglin was spreading the truth about Mr. Islams dirty littly secret (taquia). Maybe Mr. Islam, and Mr. England need some time on a waterboard ... sarcasm.
Posted by: ethoman at January 12, 2008 12:42 PM
This may yet have a positive side to it. The story has gotten out, serious accusation’s made and powerful people alerted. This is an election year and political enemies of the President will jump on a chance to hurt him and his power base. This will not be dropped, hidden or contained. If an infiltration is in progress, they have failed to remain hidden. That might just be enough to not only stop this but to root them and their allies out.
We have to make sure this story and all the dirt associated with it stays in the public eye.
at January 12, 2008 12:48 PM
heroyalwhyness ,
Thanks for posting this link
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.176/pub_detail.asp
In the end I hope this story does more to blow the lid off of this, than it hurt us by trying to silence a brave patriot like Couglin. It took several weeks for this story to break on the cable networks. They can't silence the truth ... many stories are breaking here first then getting picked up by folks like Michael Savage then onto the major news outlets. This has been forewarded thousands of times by now, which never would have happened if Couglin wasn't muscled out of the pentagon by Mr. Islam ... gotta love the name too ironic ... perfect ... catchy you think?
Posted by: ethoman at January 12, 2008 12:51 PM
Tarzan didn't kill certain beasts if and when they at first did not harken to his calls. He eventually tamed them to respond to his beck and call.
I wonder how George— I mean, I wonder how Tarzan did that to those animals ...?
Posted by: k24anson at January 12, 2008 12:57 PM
I noted on Jeffrey Carr's website, on criticism of Stephen Coughlin that criticizes Coughlin for not speaking Arabic. This of course is a common ploy used by Muslims to let non Muslims know that they don't understand or misinterpret the Qu'ran, or Hadiths because they do not understand Arabic. This of course is absolute nonsence.We are reminded by the televised discussion between a Sheike and Wafi Sultan, when the sheike tried to tell Wafi Sultan that she did not understand the Qu'ran because she could not speak Arabic--she let him know quite forcefully that this was a complete fabricated excuse for what is written and that more than 85 Pct. of the worlds practicing Muslims do not speak Arabic.
Posted by: Mackie at January 12, 2008 12:59 PM
Where's the petition, we want to sign it. The one that states: Reinstate Coughlin and seriosly investigate Hesham Islam (and most likely fire), and the guy who personally promoted him. My pen is ready as well as my send button. I will email it everywhere.
Posted by: leeve at January 12, 2008 1:07 PM
An excerpt from Coughlin's thesis:
Threat Labels and Descriptors the Excusive Domain of the IPB (Intelligence Preparation
of the Battlefield) Process.
Rounding out the discussion on the use of language that began in the section “A Final
Note on ‘Unconstrained’” that was amplified in the discussion on “key terrain,” the
proper alignment of terminology with doctrine is critical. The IPB methodology requires
a disciplined dispassionate application of the consequences of the validated threat profile
that emerges - whatever that profile may be. When not grounded in threat development
process, descriptive adjectives become unsupported editorial comments that either blur or
mischaracterize the actual nature of the threat as defined by the IPB process. Special
attention should be given to value-laden adjectives such as "extremist," "radical," and
"ultra-conservative," not to mention national-security-centric terms like "Islamist,"
"political Islam" or “violent extremist.” Arguably, if the threat doctrine is not cancelled
out in the sit-temp phase by actual Islamic doctrine, it cannot reasonably be characterized
as "radical," "extremist," or even "ultra-conservative." Adjectives that do not draw their
meaning from the IPB process, therefore, should be disfavored.
The reverse also applies. Institutional re-definition of terms should also be
disfavored, especially when re-definitions include descriptors that, on the one hand do not
draw their meaning from the IPB process and, on the other, can be associated with
institutional definitions, doctrinal understandings, or requirements that draw their
meaning from within a pre-existing national security framework. Simply stated, threat
terms and adjectives should be validated as a part of the threat development process.
Descriptors that do not draw their meaning from the threat environment will lead the
national security community to make distinctions that may not exist inside the actual
threat domain. This is not just an interesting academic debate.
at January 12, 2008 1:07 PM
USorThem,
From your site:
"But Islam didn’t want Coughlin to let the cat out of the bag at the Pentagon and worked hard to shut him up.
Islam succeeded."
At this point in time, I disagree.
I suspect he is now bemoaning the unintended consequences of his statements and actions:
public scrutiny and debate.
Posted by: PRCS at January 12, 2008 1:11 PM
Hi,
My only direct experience with Muslims was when I had to bribe them to release my brother in law Ariel from Saudi Arabia, and then when I tried to go after his recruiters in the Philippines. Ariel was recruited in the Philippines to be a construction worker, but was taken into a slavery situation instead. I learned about "moderate islam" during this experience. I also learned about the role my employer Northrop Grumman played in the saudi national guard, which I had to use to arrange my payments. I am pleased not to be working for them anymore.
I read Jihad Watch because that is where jihad activities are reported. That is where I saw your comment calling the site "pathetic". I never felt more pathetic then when "moderate moslems" finally condescended to take my money and allowed me to arrange a taxi with travel papers to pick Ariel up from the shipping container where he was hiding with his stolen cell phone after fleeing his abusers. I never felt more pathetic then when I tried to prosecute his Saudi recruiters and listening to my Philippine attorney there tell me that the judge openly took saudi money and there was nothing to be done. Have you ever been in a situation like that? You think talking to Jihad Watch readers is like "talking to the wall"? Give me a concrete example of your success in changing moslem attitudes toward infidels in a real world situation.
Thanks
at January 12, 2008 1:14 PM
ewha1
I noticed that Jeffery’s site got the most comments under the article titled “Jihad watch - don’t be a hater” and that one only got a whopping 12 comments, all the other articles have zero comments, so as you can see the only way he knows how to generate short term hits to his half-baked ideas is to come here and rant incoherently.
Mackie
A Moslem friend of mine tried that same worn out argument.
I told him the same thing, only 20% of Moslems speak Arabic, so are the other 80% following the wrong Islam?
And then I add, I am only conveying what Osama bin Laden is saying and he does speak Arabic, so what gives?
The dumb look left on his face, is priceless.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 12, 2008 1:15 PM
The last comment was for Jeffrey.
at January 12, 2008 1:15 PM
Mackie,
I know Wafa Sultan speaks Arabic; I think you mean Ayaan Hirsi Ali--could that be?
Posted by: John C at January 12, 2008 1:16 PM
See also Ronin's post above for a similar pov.
Posted by: PRCS at January 12, 2008 1:16 PM
Contact your elected officials at:
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
The CIC, VP, state reps, governors, it's all there.
These people need to hear from the public, that we are aware of what's going on and we demand they correct such a serious error.
at January 12, 2008 1:17 PM
Robert writes:
"This is a call for an investigation into facts that are not presently known..."
Nice. Throw out a baseless accusation and then call for an investigation to see if it's true or not. And you support that tactic, eh? Unless, of course, it's used against you, right?
As to my offering substance over ad hominem, you really should read your own comments section sometime. Many of your commenters love to make ad hominem attacks at my expense. It's so much easier than having to think.
The fact is, Robert, that I've always argued from a position supported by facts and well-documented opinion. I have yet to see anyone here, you included, successfully dismantle my arguments. And while that fact may annoy you, you can take some comfort in knowing that I really dislike posting here at all. I find religious bigotry appalling and disgusting, and this blog has far to much of it, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 12, 2008 1:21 PM
John C.
You are correct, Reflecting back after I had released the comment , I recalled she did, the sheike may have been refering to Americans.
Can anyone bring up the the actions between this guy and Wafi Sultan on You tube?
Posted by: Mackie at January 12, 2008 1:30 PM
Jeffrey Carr:
Actually, mostly what you've done is make yourself look like a fool with silly conspiracy theorizing -- when you're not throwing smears my way.
I admit, it's very hard for me to take you seriously when you continue to insist that my coworker is actually me, and when you base this on a document that contains numerous assertions that I likewise know from my personal experience to be false. You will say, You haven't convinced me of that. Right. And I am not going to bother trying, since you've already shown yourself impervious to evidence offered to you in good faith. But don't expect me to think of you as a serious intellect when you peddle this sort of silliness.
The fact is, Robert, that I've always argued from a position supported by facts and well-documented opinion.
Really? I haven't seen this.
I have yet to see anyone here, you included, successfully dismantle my arguments.
Nonsense. You invoked Leiken in support of the Muslim Brotherhood. I linked to material that demonstrated Leiken's arguments to be wishful thinking, at best, and contradicted by the explicit statements of the Ikhwan itself. And your response? None -- except to bring up Leiken again, as if it had never happened.
And then you wonder why people dismiss you?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 12, 2008 1:34 PM
@rational
Those kind of confrontations are better reserved for Bible-thumping, Christian extremists -- the real threat to our way of life.
What does this comment have to do with the subject of the thread. You are acting like a troll.
Everyone please ignore this ill informed islamic sympathizer and contact the authorities that can look into this issue.
PS Maybe rational is Mr Islam himself, with a similar anti-Christian comment about Mr. Coughlin.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at January 12, 2008 1:36 PM
Jeffrey,
Son, these people are not attacking you. They love you. I know you dislike posting here, but can you take a moment to answer my question?
My only argument with Muslims is that they enslaved my brother in law and only let him out of saudi arabia after I paid them money, and then acted like they were doing a dirty infidel a really big favor. These were moderate moslems working alongside an American corporation. My objection has no religious basis. It is not bigotry. I want to ask you again, under what real world conditions have you successfully caused a Muslim to modify his point of view toward an infidel?
None, right?
Thanks
at January 12, 2008 1:36 PM
For the handful of commenters who don't get why Coughlin should speak Arabic, it's what is expected of religious scholars in general. Coughlin has set himself up as an expert in religious law, thus he has to at least meet the standard set by other religious scholars. One of those standards is being able to read the religious text that you purport to be an expert in, in the original language. In Coughlin's case, he not only can't read the original language, but he doesn't even have a degree in Religious Studies or in Islamic Law. No formal training in his so-called specialty? Now THAT calls for an investigation.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 12, 2008 1:38 PM
"I really dislike posting here at all"
Then go away, bandwidth beggar.
Your arguments have been dismantled, you're just too stupid or too proud to admit it. Review for example your comments on Couglin's credentials. A simpleton's ad hominem ("second tier", "doesn't speak Arabic"; jeeezuz), "dismantled" by real facts and quotes from colleges.
You've provided nothing substantive about the core issues of this site, that Islamic terrorism is simply jihad based in the teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith, that this plainly comes out of the mouths of the terrorists, and that "moderate" Muslims have provided no scripturally based refutation of said terrorists.
Go for it, fat boy.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 12, 2008 1:38 PM
Jeffery
I didn’t know you hold exclusive rights to ad hominem attacks.
Classifying readers and those who post comments here as all “haters” is ad hominem, I don’t like Islam because I have read the Qur’an, Hadith and seen Sharia in practice, all things that are not of interest to you.
The fact is, Robert, that I've always argued from a position supported by facts and well-documented opinion.
Like this one.
Christian extremists aren't any better than Muslim extremists.
Supported by what facts and who really cares how well documented or demented your opinion is!
at January 12, 2008 1:42 PM
Bandwidth beggar,
Coughlin's thesis is linked above in this thread (post 495778).
Direct your criticisms of Coughlin at specific portions of his work. Quote the passage in context, then critique at will. We will judge the quality of your critique. Don't direct us to view the critique on your site, because we have all figured out that is what you're really here for, traffic.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 12, 2008 1:49 PM
If all else fails call us Christian Extremists.
"I find religious bigotry appalling and disgusting,"
posted by J. carr
Years ago, early 70's I had dealings with Islam through college students. Even though these were honor students at a prestigious university, I attributed their upside-down logic to coming from less developed countries.
I now know different.
Why would anyone who claims to be in the "Intelligence Community" put down people who only want to understand why people want (and say it every day) to kill us and destroy our way of life?
I think that many of the commenters here are very smart and well read.
If we make fun of you, well read your own comments. You have never explained why you support getting rid of Mr. Coughlin. Maybe he is not perfect, but he is the best they have, so why shouldn't they keep him?
If you think we make A.H. attacks on you, well part of that is you are just too easy to make fun of. I know, that's playground behavior.
Read the site, we pick on each other too.
However, this is a serious subject to all of us. One that, if we lose our countries to Islamic rule, is just too horrifying to contemplate.
I guess it's just a case of 'I don't know whether to laugh or cry'.
So we laugh, poke fun, snipe at people with indefensible stances. We are sorry you are unable to take our bullying.
Keep reading JW, you just might learn something that will save your life someday.
cordially,
Aunt Bea
at January 12, 2008 2:02 PM
Mr. Carr
Instead of blasting Mr. Coughlin maybe you should actually read his thesis, and through your great powers of observation compare and contrast it with a viewpoint that you would consider as truth. All of the requirements you list above are fine, but can you actually disgest anything this man has said and have some viewpoint on it? Untill you can do that you will be scorned, because after reading Mr. Coughlin's thesis I must say it appears that you will have your work cut out for you. Untill you can break down something Mr. Coughlin said and refute it ... you will be met with scorn ... just accept that.
Posted by: ethoman at January 12, 2008 2:02 PM
I think we may be able to see here were Jeffrey Carr Draws some of his knowledge and opinions on Stephen Coughlin. Mr. Carr notes the opinion's of one Larry Johnson who reflects a somewhat liberal and left leaning stance on our concerns Mr. Johnsons article is entitled "Islamofascist nonsense".---yep! no room for the battle of ideas, seems more like the suppression of ideas.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/09/islamofascist_nonsense
Posted by: Mackie at January 12, 2008 2:08 PM
more than 85 Pct. of the worlds practicing Muslims do not speak Arabic.
by Mackie
That's why they haven't recoiled from it in horror. They rock back and forth, reciting syllables, with no idea what they mean. Put it in their own language and they are shocked.
As for the idea that you can't be an Islamic scholar without knowing Arabic, wasn't the koran written in a form that is no longer used today? So now you have to know medieval Arabic? Then why don't those who claim to know all there is to know about Christianity know the original language of those texts? Just how many Aramaic scholars are there?
If the words of the Koran cannot be understood except in 7th century dialects, then it is a religion whose time has passed. It should be dead.
No one needs to know medieval Arabic to know what is meant by "Death to America", something Mohammed never said.
at January 12, 2008 2:08 PM
Jeffrey Carr: You wrote above that you "find religious bigotry appalling and disgusting,..." Implicit in that statement (and so many others of yours) is an absolute refusal on your part to consider the possibility that a religion can be fundamentally flawed and inimical to mankind. You treat axiomatically something that should only be dealt with hypothetically, to wit, that Islam is a good and peaceful religion, just as, say, Christianity and Buddhism are. But what if Islam is not inherently good? After all, where is it written that just because something is a religion it must be a positive for mankind? What if Islam is indeed the one major faith which is totalitarian in structure, just as Bertrand Russell maintained well over half a century ago? What then?
Let's face it, I don't think you would call a person a bigot for disliking Marxism or Nazism. Why therefore do you automatically jump to the conclusion that if someone dislikes Islam they are some kind of narrow-minded, one-dimensional individual? Perhaps what appears to be your complete refusal to even consider the possibility that Islam is rotten to the core is dispositive of your own narrow-mindedness.
Posted by: Wellington at January 12, 2008 2:10 PM
Coughlin gets it; so many people in the West, like Jeffery Carr, are so anxious for peace they will not consider that "peace" in Islam doesn't require economic, social, or any other kind of justice. It requires submission, period.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at January 12, 2008 2:13 PM
@BurgerBoy
My mistake if true, I don't think JW as a sarcasm site. Wish people would state so because most is not. When it is done it is usually a brief statement and quit obvious.
I am a little sensitive to this because it comes up very often to justify or deflect the important argument concerning the threat of Islam. Even from non-muslim, ignorant, head in the sand, left and right Americans. OH, the vast majority of US.
I wish my last statement was sarcastic!
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at January 12, 2008 2:17 PM
PRCS
My assessment that Islam (Hasham, that is) outright "won" is ready for modification. That was written a week ago and before many other posts and articles. But, as long as Coughlin is scheduled to be let go, Islam keeps his position, and no further corrective action is taken, I think as between Coughlin and Islam, Islam, although bruised and beaten up in the last week, did succeed.
Posted by: USorThem at January 12, 2008 2:18 PM
Taken from Mr. Carrs site: We are all on the same side here ok.
Defining the Moderate Muslims
Application of Criteria
It follows from the above that for a group to declare itself “democratic” in the sense of favoring elections as the vehicle for establishing government—as in the case of the present Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood—is not enough. Just as important is respect for freedom of expression, association, and religion (and the freedom not to be religious as well): what we called in The Muslim World After 9/11 the “infrastructure of democratic political processes.” Therefore, in determining whether a
group or movement meets this characterization of moderation, a reasonably complete picture of its worldview is needed. This picture can emerge from the answers given to the following questions
Does the group (or individual) support or condone violence? If it does not support or condone violence now, has it supported or condoned it in the past?
Does it support democracy? And if so, does it define democracy broadly in terms of individual rights?
Does it support internationally recognized human rights?
Does it make any exceptions (e.g., regarding freedom of religion)?
Does it believe that changing religions is an individual right?
Does it believe the state should enforce the criminal-law component of shari’a?
Does it believe the state should enforce the civil-law component of shari’a? Or does it believe there should be non-shari’a options for those who prefer civil-law matters to be adjudicated under a
secular legal system?
Does it believe that members of religious minorities should be entitled to the same rights as Muslims?
Does it believe that a member of a religious minority could hold high political office in a Muslim majority country?
Does it believe that members of religious minorities are entitled to build and run institutions of their faith (churches and synagogues) in Muslim majority countries?
Does it accept a legal system based on nonsectarian legal principles?
By the way most of this stuff goes against the teachings of Muhammed ... Couglin could tell you that.
at January 12, 2008 2:18 PM
Mr. Carr
Please answer this question with a yes or no
Have you read the Koran cover to cover?
Posted by: dms at January 12, 2008 2:20 PM
Reposted from yesterday:
If the joint chiefs treat an expert like Caughlin like this, I have grave concern about our joint chiefs ability to conduct the war we are in.
I cannot recall General Marshall, General Hap Arnold, or Admiral King (WWII equivalent of the joint chiefs)firing their top experts on the Axis Powers. What are the joint chiefs using for a model? The 1940 French General Staff?
What ever happened to know-your-enemy Sun Tzu?
Besides wondering why we are paying for pentagon bureaucrats and Esposito-trained generals and admirals, I wonder just what kind of information our cadets at West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy, The Coast Guard Academy, VMI, etc., and OCS schools are being taught about the Islamic enemy and about Islamic history? God help us if we have crops of future Esposito-trained officers coming up as ignorant about Islam as the present joint chiefs appear to be from this decision.
at January 12, 2008 2:23 PM
Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but here is another one of Jeffery statements based on fact and demented opinion.
If we want to end Jihadi Terrorism, we need to stop doing the things that drive moderate Muslims towards Jihadi ideology.
I wonder what excuse Jeff would use when confronted with the fact that jihad was happing way before America was around. Was it still our fault somehow, someway?
Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 12, 2008 2:30 PM
Hear no, speak no see no .... the head in the sand is a much more comforting view no?
Does it believe the state should enforce the civil-law component of shari’a? Or does it believe there should be non-shari’a options for those who prefer civil-law matters to be adjudicated under a
secular legal system?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001493.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004524.php
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/440.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=440&nid=&id=
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/23969
Posted by: ethoman at January 12, 2008 2:33 PM
Robert wrote:
"Nonsense. You invoked Leiken in support of the Muslim Brotherhood. I linked to material that demonstrated Leiken's arguments to be wishful thinking, at best, and contradicted by the explicit statements of the Ikhwan itself. And your response? None -- except to bring up Leiken again, as if it had never happened."
Leiken was one of 4 sources that I brought up to demonstrate the existence of moderate Muslims. I didn't dispute your material because I don't require Leiken as a reference. The 3 RAND studies are much better. But isn't that a moot point, Robert, because you claim that you also believe that moderate Muslims exist. You just have trouble finding them. Do I have that right?
As far as you socking "Hugh", I'm not the first person to suspect that, and I'm probably not the last, but the evidence supports Hugh being either your sock or somebody else' pseudonym. And by "evidence", I'm not talking about whatever Jim Sutter thinks he knows. I'm talking about inconsistencies in the "Hugh" character's story and the total lack of an Internet presence outside of a small handful of blogs.
Now if you'd like to move away from what I think about you and Hugh to something much more important, like why the Pentagon would hire a lawyer with no formal training in Islam to be their Islamic law expert; or the many shortcomings in Coughlin's thesis, I'll be happy to oblige you. In fact, I've already laid out my argument at my site, with supporting evidence.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 12, 2008 2:37 PM
Jeff
Please answer my question. It isn't a difficult one.
Posted by: dms at January 12, 2008 2:40 PM
Jeff Carr is the perfect example why a poisonous, anti-woman, anti-progressive, anti-freedom ideology like Islam can flourish in a free society and eventually ursurp those very freedoms it used to spread like a cancer. He aids and abets it because he projects his own open-mindedness onto it. He refuses to use appropriate discrimination because he views discrimination as inherently evil. His indiscriminate tolerance will prove to be everyone's downfall.
He and his kind are not the soul of a free society. They're the virus that weakens the body and makes it unable to fight off a cancer like Nazism, Marxism, or Islam. What a shame he doesn't see it. What a shame we all have to pay the price for his short-sighted politics. What a shame that eventually, unless officials put a stop to this very real threat, honor killings, bombings, genital mutilation, religiously sanctioned female oppression, and the like will become commonplace here in America. This needs to be confronted...
Posted by: antishock8 at January 12, 2008 2:43 PM
Just mock Carr as the bandwidth hog he is. All hat and no pants as they used to call people like him.
Posted by: waltc at January 12, 2008 2:45 PM
"Now if you'd like to move ... to something much more important, like ... the many shortcomings in Coughlin's thesis, I'll be happy to oblige you. In fact, I've already laid out my argument at my site, with supporting evidence. "
Ohhhh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no....
Bring your arguments here, big boy. We are NOT clicking on your site. Got to get your traffic from somewhere else.
at January 12, 2008 2:54 PM
Dms
As I've said before, I'm not interested in the relative merits of any religion, including Islam. posted by: Jeffery.I would say the answer is , NO!
I'll be happy to oblige you. In fact, I've already laid out my argument at my site, with supporting evidence.
As I said before, he is only looking for traffic, the poor guy spends hours upon hours working his site and what does he get for it, maybe 1 hit a day, no comments, nobody cares, and the egocentric maniac cant figure out why.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 12, 2008 2:55 PM
"maybe 1 hit a day"
Yeah, when he checks it himself.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 12, 2008 3:01 PM
Mr. Carr:
Leiken was one of 4 sources that I brought up to demonstrate the existence of moderate Muslims. I didn't dispute your material because I don't require Leiken as a reference. The 3 RAND studies are much better. But isn't that a moot point, Robert, because you claim that you also believe that moderate Muslims exist. You just have trouble finding them. Do I have that right?
No, of course you don't. As I have said many, many times, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not waging jihad and never will. They aren't hard to find. Lots of them are in the U.S.
The distinction is this: peaceful Muslims are around the world being targeted for recruitment by jihadists who portray themselves as the true and pure Muslims, and appeal to those peaceful Muslims on the basis of Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as fiqh. Those groups that portray themselves as opposed to today's global jihad have not as yet mounted a comprehensive theological response to the jihadist challenge, such that will reduce peaceful Muslims' vulnerability to such recruitment. Instead, they smear and vilify, as you do, people who point out this use of Islamic material by the jihadists. That only ensures that such recruitment will continue, unchallenged.
As far as you socking "Hugh", I'm not the first person to suspect that, and I'm probably not the last, but the evidence supports Hugh being either your sock or somebody else' pseudonym. And by "evidence", I'm not talking about whatever Jim Sutter thinks he knows. I'm talking about inconsistencies in the "Hugh" character's story and the total lack of an Internet presence outside of a small handful of blogs.
Uh huh. And when in good faith I offered you ways to verify his existence, although he is a secretive person, you weaved a series of ever more outlandish conspiracy theories rather than simply accept the possibility that you were wrong. So as I said above -- I do not care what you think about Hugh and me. But since I know Hugh exists, from firsthand experience, as do many others, I know that your insistence on this makes you appear to be, well, an idiot.
Now if you'd like to move away from what I think about you and Hugh to something much more important, like why the Pentagon would hire a lawyer with no formal training in Islam to be their Islamic law expert; or the many shortcomings in Coughlin's thesis, I'll be happy to oblige you. In fact, I've already laid out my argument at my site, with supporting evidence.
Yes. I haven't been to your filthy little smear site, but someone did send me what you wrote about Coughlin. It appears that your problems with him revolve around the allegation that he has no degrees in this field. I don't know whether he actually does or not, but I do know that a degree in a field is no guarantee of competency and certainly no guarantee of freedom from bias. And a lack of a degree in a field likewise doesn't tell us anything about whether or not one knows the field or is competent in it. Middle East Studies in particular is so controlled by ideological fascists that a professorship in a major university these days is practically a guarantee that one is a hack and a propagandist, like Carl Ernst and Omid Safi, rather than an educator and a thinker.
Second: he doesn't know Arabic. I don't know whether he actually does or not, but I know there is a lot of mystification on this point by jihad apologists. In reality, translation happens. It is not perfect, but it works. Arabic is a human language, it can be rendered in another language just like any other -- but no amount of linguistic or translational alchemy can render "beat her" (Qur'an 4:34) as "give her a hug."
Also, you are deluding yourself if you think that no Arabic speakers, and no Muslims and ex-Muslims, have studied the same material and come to the same conclusions as Kaufman. Read Majid Khadduri's War and Peace in the Law of Islam.
Third, you trot out a couple of writers, Hourani and Khaled Abou El Fadl, to say that Islamic law is a human thing and constantly evolving. Any evidence that this is a mainstream, orthodox Islamic view? You provide none, and it isn't. Also, in any case the four Sunni madhahib, which I believe are mentioned in your piece, are in almost complete agreement about the doctrines of jihad warfare and the subjugation of unbelievers. In fact, there is no orthodox sect or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach this. One would think that if moderates were as outspoken, fearless, and prominent as you imagine, they would have succeeded in codifying their tolerant and pluralistic beliefs somehow, somewhere, in some school or in the teachings of some sect. They haven't yet. I'm rooting for them, but we kid ourselves at our own risk.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 12, 2008 3:03 PM
Folks I have to confess I had an evil playground thought about Mr. Carr the other day. It was after the article was posted about the male Tokyo Rose tape from Al Qaida. Adam?
I was fantasizing about photoshopping that rag onto you know who's head.
BTW the counterterrorism blog has the full text of his rant. There are some very interesting things in there about the mortgage situation. After 9/11 it was brought out that Osama was invested in stocks that paid him because of the attacks. Something to do with re-insurance, I think.
Could they have had a hand in this debacle?
He lectures about the Bible too, and I bet he doesn't read Aramic or Greek.
at January 12, 2008 3:07 PM
"I'm talking about inconsistencies in the "Hugh" character's story and the total lack of an Internet presence outside of a small handful of blogs" Posted by: Jeffrey Carr
Mr. Carr,
Here you could be talking about me.... I rarely give out personal information and only comment on a small handful of blogs. Does that mean I have the honor of being Mr. Spencer also?
I guess your logic on the theory is wanting also.
",like why the Pentagon would hire a lawyer with no formal training in Islam to be their Islamic law expert" Posted by: Jeffrey Carr
Does this mean that in order to be a legal expert on Islamic Law one must go to one of these MADrassas? Would that not mean he's "expertise" would now be in question for Western Law?
This is like the arguement from Tariq Ramadan that "Only a believer can understand the Koran"
Again your logic is flawed as his.
If your logic is so flawed on the comment section here, why would I waste my time going to your web site for more of the same?
Posted by: senor doeboy at January 12, 2008 3:10 PM
Ladies and gentlemen
I invite you to ponder the following paragraph by Jacques Ellul, who was probably one of the twentieth century's clearest-headed analysts of the workings of propaganda, which he detested.
"notons...que c’est un des caracteres classiques de la propagande d’accuser son adversaire d’abuser de la propagande. C’est un des premiers tests.
"Hitler n’a cesse de clamer qu’il se bornait a dire la verite, et que c’etaient les Americains et les Anglais qui, depuis 1934, faisaient contre lui une propagande dementielle. Staline n’a cesse de declarer qu’il ne cherchait jamais a influencer l’opinion mondiale, mais que c’etaient les Etats capitalistes qui abreuvaient le monde de mensonges et d’accusations contre l’innocent regime des Soviets."
Now let's put that into English (apologies for any infelicities - the translation is my own):
- " let us note ...that one of the classic marks of propaganda is that it accuses its adversary of abusing propaganda. That is one of the first proofs."
"Hitler never ceased to claim that he confined himself to speaking the truth, and that it was the Americans and the English who, after 1934, were making a mad propaganda against him. Stalin never stopped declaring that he never sought to influence world opinion, but that it was the capitalist states which were feeding the world with lies and accusations against the innocent Soviet regime".
That passage is from Ellul's magnificent 'Un Chretien Pour Israel', which has not yet been translated into English: the greater part of the book may be read as a clinical case study, exemplifying the workings of propaganda by deconstructing the vast and extremely successful 'Palestinian' Arab Muslim (and antisemitic, and also Soviet-derived) propaganda against Israel and the Jews.
But just to repeat: "c’est un des caracteres classiques de la propagande d’accuser son adversaire d’abuser de la propagande. C’est un des premiers tests" - "it is one of the classic marks of propaganda, that it accuses its adversary of abusing propaganda. That is one of the first proofs."
Now: I am sure that Mr 'Jeffrey Carr' will attempt to turn this around against Spencer himself.
Unfortunately for Mr 'Carr': it is he himself, not Spencer, who appears to me to conform most closely to Ellul's description of the propagandists. (There are other aspects of that description that fit - for example, the use of insults - but I won't take up space by going into them now).
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy
at January 12, 2008 3:14 PM
Jeffery
For a nominal fee, I will gladly post your filthy little smear site in the spinoff links at LGF, you traffic will increase by the tens of thousands, but I must warn you if you don’t like the site of your own blood, you shouldn’t play.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 12, 2008 3:16 PM
For the handful of commenters who don't get why Coughlin should speak Arabic, it's what is expected of religious scholars in general. Coughlin has set himself up as an expert in religious law, thus he has to at least meet the standard set by other religious scholars. One of those standards is being able to read the religious text that you purport to be an expert in, in the original language. In Coughlin's case, he not only can't read the original language, but he doesn't even have a degree in Religious Studies or in Islamic Law. No formal training in his so-called specialty? Now THAT calls for an investigation.
This is epistemologically invalid. The is no reason on God's green earth that a good English translation and good English commentary cannot COMPLETELY explicate the contents of Islamic religious doctrine. I studied French, German, Latin and Ancient Greek and out of those four languages there were a handful of unrenderable phrases that English couldn't handle. Now, there are "states of mind" that a Frenchman or an Ancient Greek might inhabit that would be foreign to an English speaker, but there is no lack of English vocabulary to describe those states of mind. When we speak of "schadenfreude" for Germans, we know there isn't an exact English equivalent word, but it's not as if it's a feeling we can't understand because we're not native German speakers.
What Muslims have to understand (and probably won't because they refuse to read "infidel" books) is that their religion really isn't that complex and the complex parts were already enunciated through the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, so anyone brought up in those traditions will easily "get" Islam. It's that Muslims don't "get" what isn't Islam, so they continue to put Islam on this pedestal like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, when actually Islam is half-understood Judaic monotheism reinterpreted to match the personal whims of a desert thug.
As for the "argument" that one must have a degree in a particular field to be knowledgeable enough in that field, it's even worse than the invalid argument about Arabic.
Posted by: venividivici at January 12, 2008 3:21 PM
Mr Carr,
If you would be so kind to go to this SITE. It was brought to my attention yesterday. The author is anonymous but he has had dealings with the people of the middle east and how they conduct themselves toward one another and us.
You have a number of questions that you are asking a Muslim on you site. My thinking is that you would not know for sure if their answers were truthful or not. As has been stated here many times the proof is in the results.
Is he lying about it or not? Don't answer until you have read it.
Mat 7:17-20
So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. . . . So then, you will know them by their fruits.
حصير 7:17-20
حتى كل شجرة جيدة تحمل ثمرة طيبة ، ولكن سوء شجرة تحمل فاكهه سيئة. شجرة طيبة لا يمكن ان تنتج الفواكه سيئة ، كما انه لا يمكن سيئة شجرة جيدة تنتج الفواكه. . . حتى ذلك الحين ، فسوف نعرفها من قبل والفواكه.
at January 12, 2008 3:34 PM
Several days ago I contacted my senator with my concern over this ... still waiting for a response.
Posted by: LoneRanger at January 12, 2008 3:36 PM
Those kind of confrontations are better reserved for Bible-thumping, Christian extremists -- the real threat to our way of life.
Just a stupid comment. WTH was wrong with the US before the "great awakening" sponsored by Madeline O'Hair? It was a pretty damned good place to live.
The US up to that time WAS a Christian nation.
at January 12, 2008 3:36 PM
Mr Carr
I'm still waiting for the answer to my teeny weeny yes or no question which doesn't require any degree to answer. Have you read the Koran from cover to cover? I will wait forever if necessary.
Posted by: dms at January 12, 2008 4:07 PM
Video:
Here is that terrific exchange that certainly brought Wafi Sultan to our attention and always worth another watch and listen from Feb. 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ
Posted by: Mackie at January 12, 2008 4:09 PM
Jeffery Carr, wow. Do me a favor, if you will? First of all, get up off of your chair and stand on your two feet. Perhaps adjust and angle your computer screen so you can see the picture screen better and more clearly. And now, while still standing I want you to click the link at the end of this sentence and then to give a warm round of applause to welcome, and to watch a day in the life of our beloved Mara. Do this for me before you do anything else, ok?
When you have finished watching this psychologically healthy little girl go through these moments in her life, I want you to ask yourself if she and millions of other Western influenced boys and girls would be "better" human being if there were more of an Islamic influence in their personal and social lives. Consider that the conglomeration of platonic and cockeyed thoughts generated from the Koran are not inspired by the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of the Universe being that "thing," whatever It is, that made the quarks and electrons, the sunsets and sunrises and rainbows, and snails, pails and puppy-dog tails, sugar and spice and everything nice ..., and that someone like Mara would begin to think thoughts and act in ways where she thinks God or Allah blesses her because she performs any of the religious rituals prescribed from the Koran.
But perhaps this train of thought is irrelevant to you, that is, that the words and thoughts of the Koran are so bogus to any rational thinking person, and that all that is important to you is that people should be free to pursue any religious practice they chose, and that Jeffery Carr will help anyone to defend those rights.
The Mind and the Personality of the Creator of whatever agnostic or atheistic colors one could imagine to paint It to be constituted with, nothing about this Creator is in all actuality gleaned from a reading of the Koran. Future intentions of this Creator to Its human creation cannot be gleaned from a reading of the Koran. The Koran is bogus and ancient and dangerous today. Why are you attempting to legitimacize such bunk?
Your arguments want to give legitimacy to a social cancer on the earth today. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have Mayan and Incan rituals practiced today too?! Maybe Mara and her friends could watch a YouTube clip of some of these rituals, and you yourself could then explain to her and her friends why people have the right to do such things ...?
Think of Mara Jeffery, and try to think and do things to keep the influence of that bums religion from bothering her, and instead try to think to create a climate where young people can grow into mature and psychologically healthy adults.
In other words, wow, do some introspection. How could you feel proud about what you're defending?
Posted by: k24anson at January 12, 2008 4:10 PM
Evidence of intelligent life on earth.
==================
That said,
Mr. Coughlin was told by his employers that his contract would not be renewed due to the fact his message, and therefore he himself, had become too “politically hot.”
"Hot"? Why "hot"? What makes it "hot"?
What we are being told by his employers is that the objections of people like Hesham Islam make something "hot" for them.
But of course, if you don't care about Mr. Islam's opinions, its not "hot" at all.
So they are only announcing their eagerness to please Mr. Islam and his associates.
Posted by: joeblough at January 12, 2008 4:11 PM
What does this comment have to do with the subject of the thread. You are acting like a troll.
Everyone please ignore this ill informed islamic sympathizer and contact the authorities that can look into this issue.
PS Maybe rational is Mr Islam himself, with a similar anti-Christian comment about Mr. Coughlin.
Im.mad.as.HELL!,
Obviously the sarcasm went over your head.
Posted by: rational at January 12, 2008 4:23 PM
Mr.Islam is not the only traitor in the State Department.
For sale: America’s deadly nuclear secrets by Traitors from the London Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
A WHISTLEBLOWER has made a series of extraordinary claims about how corrupt government officials allowed Pakistan and other states to steal nuclear weapons secrets.
Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.
She approached The Sunday Times last month after reading about an Al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.
Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions. Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.
The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.
However, Edmonds said: “He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.”
She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.
“If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,” she said.
Her story shows just how much the West was infiltrated by foreign states seeking nuclear secrets. It illustrates how western government officials turned a blind eye to, or were even helping, countries such as Pakistan acquire bomb technology.
The wider nuclear network has been monitored for many years by a joint Anglo-American intelligence effort. But rather than shut it down, investigations by law enforcement bodies such as the FBI and Britain’s Revenue & Customs have been aborted to preserve diplomatic relations.
Edmonds, a fluent speaker of Turkish and Farsi, was recruited by the FBI in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Her previous claims about incompetence inside the FBI have been well documented in America.
She has given evidence to closed sessions of Congress and the 9/11 commission, but many of the key points of her testimony have remained secret. She has now decided to divulge some of that information after becoming disillusioned with the US authorities’ failure to act.
One of Edmonds’s main roles in the FBI was to translate thousands of hours of conversations by Turkish diplomatic and political targets that had been covertly recorded by the agency.
A backlog of tapes had built up, dating back to 1997, which were needed for an FBI investigation into links between the Turks and Pakistani, Israeli and US targets. Before she left the FBI in 2002 she heard evidence that pointed to money laundering, drug imports and attempts to acquire nuclear and conventional weapons technology.
“What I found was damning,” she said. “While the FBI was investigating, several arms of the government were shielding what was going on.”
The Turks and Israelis had planted “moles” in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology. Edmonds says there were several transactions
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)