 |
 |
 |
The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11683
Comments
1
.
Ted Belman
said:
This is such a hugely important study. Now that the US military sees the reality ie that Islam is not a religion of peace but instead is a religion of war, it will be harder to deny it.
Posted by: Ted Belman on December 14, 2005 06:23 PM
2
.
rocky
said:
Wow!
Big discovery!
Posted by: rocky on December 14, 2005 09:58 PM
3
.
Peretz Rickett
said:
In related news, in another wing of the Pentagon, analysts have published a report entitled "Gravity: Myth or Fact?" In it there is a clear indication that the Pentagon is inclined reverse its previous position and adopt the controversial gravity theory.
"This has ramifications on our entire force," said Brig. General John Smith, "...it would explain why crashes of military aircraft always end up on the ground, and why none of our research efforts in enabling infantrymen to fly have yet been successful."
It is still unclear whether this new strategy paper will find its way into policy, as it has been the generally accepted understanding throughout academia and government that gravity is just a right-wing illusion. "I find it preposterous that the Pentagon is even discussing what these fanatics claim," Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said in a brief statement after the report was leaked.
Posted by: Peretz Rickett on December 15, 2005 02:17 AM
4
.
BobW
said:
Buried within so much nonsense in Paul Sperry's article was something important; "a Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security...". Both the new Department of Homeland Security and the article's mention of "Northern Command", demonstrates that USG is taking rapid steps to confront the "Islamic radicals" (or "terrorists" or "Islamc moderates - it doesn't matter). We are witnessing a rehabilitation of the old "CONARC" Continental Army Command, a military organization to protect the Zone of the Interior.
It does not matter if the terrorists are driven by "personal demons" or group demons. The apparatus is being built to destroy them.
I have no idea what Paul Sperry was told about "baseline studies". The USG and the private sector USG relies upon, has a wealth of information on Muslims' ideological and military doctrines. (I do not know what a "baseline study" is.) The US Army once has 2 companies of Muslim troops in the Phillippines. Vinnell Corporation trained the Saudi Arabian National Guard. There are many examples where information and knowledge exist.
No "capitals"?? Teheran is a capital. No "economic base"?? Forget the Euro spot forward against the Euro. Look at the petrodollars. They're not harvested from the Mongolian steppes. No "military formations"?? Why ever mention the Baaka Valley?! No "installations"?? Only because anything can be accepted as an embassy and a charity can it be said that no installations exist. I recall a British police officer was murdered in London by a terrorist firing a submachine gun from an upper floor of the "Embassy" of Libya, London. The barbarians' installations can be plotted on maps and charts.
It's not PC worries holding the politicans back. America's bond sales are the worry. The Arabs are a major creditor of the US. The US is addressing this also. America's economy will boom while living standards are adjusted to pay off the debts.
The contemporary barbarians will meet the same fate as the Barbary pirates.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on December 15, 2005 05:20 AM
5
.
Ted Belman
said:
Peretz
Lets have more of your comments. Loved your tongue in cheek.
Posted by: Ted Belman on December 15, 2005 05:30 AM
6
.
rocky
said:
BobW,
The last paragraph of the article was depressing, but your insight has given me a glimmer of hope.
Posted by: rocky on December 15, 2005 06:33 AM
7
.
Bill Narvey
said:
Peretz Rickett's and Bob W's comments on this article provide insight into what is.
I wonder however if this Pentagon study is a leaked bit of news of a real effort to understand Islam along the lines of the adage "know thine enemy" for the purpose of better advising the Bush administration.
Assuming for the moment that the Pentagon confirms its preliminary conclusion that Islam itself is a radical war doctrine against non-Muslims with its ultimate goal to dominate the world, will such conclusion be enough to cause the Bush administration to abandon political correctness when it comes to confronting and battling back against radicalized Islamists?
One would think the answer to the question would be a resounding yes.
Consider however that virtually all people know the fact that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, but relatively few can explain why. Knowing why does not change the fact.
The Bush administration and the rest of the West already know that there are radical Islamists who in their fanatic beliefs and hatreds, seek to destroy the West. The West has long known that this radical Islamic ideology is being promoted by the likes of Saudi Arabia both within Muslim nations and within Western Muslim communities.
That there are radical Islamic cells within Western nations has also been long known.
The West has learned over the past number of years that a number of Muslim organizations and some Muslim charities were disguising their true nature of being Islamic radicalized organizations promoting radical Islam and engaged in fundraising for Muslim terrorists.
What also became public knowledge with the British subway bombing of 7/7, was that the Muslim communities and even the Muslim family and friends of these 2nd and 3rd generation radicalized British Muslims had no inkling of their radicalism. All seemed to be regular nice ordinary young men.
Even with this knowledge of the dangers of radical Islam, whether inspired by a radical Islam as a religion or a large number of Muslims who use and define the religion of Islam to support their agendas, the Bush administration and the rest of the West continues to limit their responses to radical Islam and its radical supporters from terrorists down to those non-combatant Muslims who support radical Islam with their hearts and their money.
Essentially the West has tied at least one hand behind its back in combating radical Islam.
The British 7/7 underlines that Muslim radicals intent on harming the West are adept at disguising their natures so that they are indistinguishable from peaceful Muslims. That you would think would lead to singling out all Muslims that fit the age profile of Muslim radicals and terrorists and subject them to much greater scrutiny.
Instead, the West in fear of being accused of racism should they racially and age profile all Muslims that fit the profile, avoid doing so.
It is no secret that the OPEC nations have enormously profited by picking trillions of petro dollars out of the pockets of the West and that has given those nations great economic leverage over the West.
The West's politically correct responses to radical Islam are at least in part motivated by the West's fear to not do or say anything to offend these OPEC nations that we have learned are extremely sensitive to any criticism and risk these OPEC nations pulling the economic plug on Western economies. Such an action would be economically devastating to many Western nations.
The EU that has entered into written and gentlemen's agreements to support Arabs in their hate war against Israel in return for being cut in by OPEC nations for lucrative economic opportunities, feels especially vulnerable. Incidentally, the EU's own anti-semtism dovetailed nicely for it with Islamic anti-semitism and the combination of those two forms of anti-Semitism have created a very powerful mix.
America feels vulnerable to stand alone against radical Islam. To gain some allied support from the EU, America has therefore been forced to compromise its battle against radical Islam by acquiescing to some EU sensibilities and positions. These EU positions derive not from the EU's better view of how to deal with Islamic radicalism, but the EU's desperation not to suffer any economic harm by offending their OPEC benefactors.
America's fears and the OPEC nations’ economic leverage over the West including America has resulted in the world seeing the surreal picture of Bush walking in the White House Rose Garden hand in hand with the Saudis.
With the West and America armed with all this knowledge about radical Islam, I just do not see that with all other things being equal, that a Pentagon report that even proves to a certainty that it is the religion of Islam itself that is radicalizing Muslims, that the West will see that to save itself from radical Islam, it must destroy the religion of Islam and its followers.
It seems that radical Islam is pushing its agenda for Islamic world domination and it is pushing that agenda in so many ways.
It also seems that the West appears to be ignoring that the radical Islamist agenda is being pushed in more ways than just by terrorism, yet it limits its response to terrorism and even that response is limited because those OPEC nations that promote radical Islam and fund terrorism are not viewed as culpable aiders and abettors of radical Islam.
The West preaches and tries to live by what it preaches in terms of tolerance of and mutual respect for all, abhorring violence as a means to peace and holds life precious.
Radical Islam, has no difficulty with its intolerance and lack of respect for non-Muslims, revels in its hatreds of non-Muslims and Jews especially, sees violence and pressing any other advantage, such as economic strength as a very legitimate means to its ends and does not hold life precious in the same way the West does, for it has no compunctions about sacrificing Muslim lives to achieve its ends.
The Rules of Engagement War Book the West is using is not at all the same book Radical Islam uses. There are no comparable, “How to Respect and Tolerate Different Views, How to Reach Out to Others and How to Live In Peace With Others” type Western books in the libraries of radical Islam.
As sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, radical Islam is unwilling to negotiate, to respect, to accommodate or tolerate the West and it is ready, able and willing to do whatever it takes to advance its agenda to destroy the West and have Islam dominate the world, including fighting and dying for their beliefs.
The West however has not shown that it is equally ready, able and willing to fight to protect and preserve all that it has and believes in, which by virtue of what radical Islam is committed to, necessarily means that the West has no choice but to defeat and destroy radical Islam.
For the West’s sake, it cannot afford to wait until its too late when all that will be left is the post mortem ‘coulda, woulda, shoulda eulogies delivered by the surviving dhimmis.
Posted by: Bill Narvey on December 15, 2005 10:07 AM
8
.
Ptah
said:
About time! I see this as a definite "Know thine enemy" move.
A Psychology professor at a college I taught at told me the following: "People are logical, but not rational. People are Logical, in that their thoughts and behaviors invariably and consistently follow a set of rules that they never violate. People are not rational, because those sets of rules may not make any sense at all."
Multiculturalism is an attempt by the left to declare all sets of rules equally valid, in order to ensure that THEIR rule set is accepted. They then turn around and attempt to use actions and thinking guided by THEIR rule set to exclude the common rule set held by Western Civilization, and which seems to be one supported by mother nature herself. The whole ecological movement is an attempt to deny that the Western Rule set is supported by Nature, when the real problem is lack of knowledge that would be resolved by applying the Western Civ Rule set.
They knew there would be conflict between THEIR rule set and Western Civ's, but didn't exactly count on Islamofascism's rule set, did they?
Posted by: Ptah on December 15, 2005 01:37 PM
9
.
t
said:
Here'san interesting though... What if the Jews and Israel possessed thebulk of world oil? Would the world coveror even respect it? My thoughs are probably not. There is an age-old hatred at work that transends petrodollars.
Posted by: t on December 15, 2005 01:40 PM
10
.
Ted Belman
said:
Bill
You got that right.
Ptah
Welcome back
Posted by: Ted Belman on December 15, 2005 02:53 PM
11
.
kuhnkat
said:
Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch
Isn't the question whether there IS an off switch?? If there is one it will be the rewriting and reteaching the Quran and the Hadiths.
Of course, since Abraham it is as "t" states:
"There is an age-old hatred at work that transends petrodollars."
Posted by: kuhnkat on December 16, 2005 08:35 PM
The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo
By Paul Sperry, Frontpage Magazine
Washington's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.
A little-noticed speech by President Bush in October gave them some hope. In a major rhetorical shift, he described the enemy as "Islamic radicals" and not just "terrorists," although he still denies that radicalism has anything to do with their religion.
Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.
Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?
Answers are hard to come by. Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.
But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United States.
Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.
"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."
So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.
"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."
Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."
So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.
"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."
It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.
According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.
In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.
The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.
In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.
And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.
It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."
Right now political leaders don't understand the true nature of the threat,\ it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless "criminals" motivated by "hatred of our freedoms," rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.
Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.
"I don't like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War," says a Northern Command intelligence official. "However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information."
Why? "All suffer heavily from political correctness," he explains.
PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation's military headquarters.
"A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat," a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. "We're getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404."
The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures -- such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting "critical vulnerabilities" or rifts within the Muslim faith and community -- can begin.
"Most Americans don't realize we are in a war of survival -- a war that is going to continue for decades," the Northcom official warns.
It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.
Cross-posted at IceViking
Posted by IceViking at December 15, 2005 07:56 AM