Monday, October 24, 2011

Obama Administration Bans the Truth About Islam and Jihad


From Front Page Mag: It has been a long time coming, but the Obama Administration has now officially banned the truth. Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole declared Wednesday at a conference in Washington that he had “recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security.” This “reevaluation” will remove all references to Islam in connection with any examination of Islamic jihad terror activity. The Obama Administration has now placed off-limits any investigation of the beliefs, motives and goals of jihad terrorists.
Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasizedthat training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
Holton said that he had spoken with Attorney General Eric Holder about FBI training materials that Holton claimed were “egregiously false,” and that Holder “is firmly committed to making sure that this is over….we’re going to fix it.” Holton said that this “fix” was particularly urgent because the rejected training materials “pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam.”
Well, there you have it folks the great and almighty Obama administration has spoken and therefore we must comply.  I think not!  


What kind of message is this sending Islamic terrorists?  Did they just give them permission to enter our country unchecked and unchallenged?  Make no mistake people, the United States and any nation or culture that stands against radical Islam is at war with them.  


I seriously wonder what compels this administration to want to protect terrorists who are bound and determined to kill, maim and destroy anyone who stands in their way?  


What happened to protecting Americans?

48 comments:

MK said...

Can't say i'm surprised, obama like most leftards finds shoving his head up his ass most comforting.

"The Obama Administration has now placed off-limits any investigation of the beliefs, motives and goals of jihad terrorists."

Might as well just place any investigation of them off-limits, period.

What an idiot.

I should ask though, will he be placing said jihadists off-limits from missile strikes or are we still to believe that blowing suspected muslim terrorists to pieces without any trial is still far better than detaining them with free food, water and warm blankets?

Debbie said...

I imagine Obama is also pleased with the results of the Arab Spring -- Sharia law, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

Leticia said...

MK, yeah, he is a misguided idiot. Good question, would love to hear an answer to that one. Probably the free food and blankets would be the answer from that administration.

Debbie, you know he is.

Jersey McJones said...

Leticia, I think you are not putting this in context.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/fbi-islam-qaida-irrelevant/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Blog+-+Danger+Room%29

This hit the news a few weeks ago, and now you guys are assuming Obama is striking against the FBI for politics? For to impose Sharia law?

What? What stupid thing do you think this is about?

This is a reaction to a recent scandal involving stupidity in the FBI. Would you prefer more stupidity?

JMJ

Always On Watch said...

Yep, here it is.

However, private national security agencies aren't doing this. I know this for a fact because one of my former students works private national security.

Silverfiddle said...

Regardless of circumstances, political correctness is run amok in this country.

Leticia said...

Jersey, stupid is as stupid does. I never mentioned Sharia Law, but I do not appreciate that the FBI is not ALLOWED in any shape or form to profile Jihad terrorist. Does that actually sit well with you?

AOW, that's very good news, thanks for sharing that information.

Silver, yes, sir, it truly has. And it needs to stop.

Jersey McJones said...

Leticia, the FBI does profile Jihadi terrorists, but sicko, religious right, anti-Islam proselytization has no place in FBI training. Your God is no better than their's in the eyes of the law, Leticia.

JMJ

Leticia said...

Jersey, you are wrong. Christians DO NOT commit terrorists acts of violence and therefore should not be profiled and so what if it is? I have no problem with that. People can claim to be Christians and behave just the opposite. No religion should be exempt if it means protecting American lives.

Jersey McJones said...

Leticia, I hate to burst your bubble, but yes, Christians commit terrorist acts too, and there are a lot more of them here than Muslim terrorists.

Here's just the latest example: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/birther_oathkeeper_convicted_of_attempted_courthou.php

JMJ

MK said...

Did you see the latest video of the savages sodomizing gaddafi while chanting 'allah akbar'?

Meanwhile in the west, idiots gulp down the religion-of-peace, christians-are-worse bullcrap.

liberaldude said...

More Pretzel Logic from the looney right.

Jersey McJones said...

MK, no religion I know of is a religion of peace. Not a one.

JMJ

dmarks said...

Atheism is the religion that has the bloodiest record by far.

At least with Christianity, you have Dr. King. And no, you cannot divorce his faith from his actions.

Karen Howes said...

The name "Department of Justice" is just irony now.

Jersey McJones said...

dmarks, I have yet to hear one single solitary original thought from you, ever.

To call atheism a religion is just stupid.

It's like saying walking is driving without a car.

To say it has the "bloodiest record" is just stupid.

Atheism is a relatively new phenomena, religion has been around for thousands of years. Do you really believe more people have died in the cause of a hundred years of atheism than thousands of years of religion?

Do you really want to sound that stupid?

Religion, of course, is what you make of it. Few people truly adhere to all the tenets of their faiths (thankfully!). But if you do truly adhere to the actually, textual tenets of the Big Three monotheistic faiths, they are horribly violent and cruel.

Have you ever actually read the Bible, dmarks?

JMJ

jez said...

JMJ: "It's like saying walking is driving without a car." -- good analogy!

"Do you [dmarks] really believe more people have died in the cause of a hundred years of atheism than thousands of years of religion?"

Yes, he really does, and to the extent that the 20th century purges claimed more lives than the previous centuries, he is correct. Estimate for the total number of people ever to have lived is 100 billion. Mao alone killed about 50 million people, which is 0.05% of all the people who ever lived. Ever! Add on Stalin, the Russian civil war and we're easily over 0.1% of every person who ever lived. And there are more purges to add...

Don't underestimate the effect of a) increasing world population (more people available to kill) and b) the industrial revolution (more efficient killing) on these truly unprecedented death tolls.

My problem with dmarks' idea is not the scale of his accusation, just his chosen target: atheism seems like a strange thing to complain about when you've got dictatorship, tyranny, racial supremacy etc. in my opinion the far more obvious targets for blame. There's also the problem that at least one purge-scale genocide was perpetrated by Christians, in the congo in the late 19th century.

Teresa said...

Those who oppose religion, whether they be theists or not, have been around since the beginning of time. Marxism, Communism et al. have killed and harmed more people than religion. The influences of the devil run far and wide and that includes those who pervert religion to mean anything goes and is of a moral relativistic nature.

Obama is a radical community organizer who believes that he should do whatever he feels needs to be done using whatever means. Therefore he is for tyranny and not liberty.

D Charles QC said...

Though some of the political implications are not good, ultimately this "ban" is correct. It would be hypocrisy at government level to have material that either says or implies that Islam is "evil" or dangerous.

Also logically speaking, Islamic terrorist groups are in fact pretty much political and not really religious. Like any politically radical, ultra-nationalist or populaist movement, they target those areas that are most contraversial or important to the mass of population they are trying to garner support. In the Muslim world it is obviously their faith and thus they try to look as faithful and puritanical as possible. The reality though is clearly the opposite. Al Qaeda is just a political hub that has no support from any Muslim government and is willing to deal with quasi-sects like the Taliban that the real Wahhabists and Salafis would have nothing to do with - why is that? As supposive Wahhabists pushing taqfir they should have nothing to do with any other Muslim group, but they do. Similarly, the term Muslim Brotherhood is just political and again simply because it crosses over into other sects, fiqr and agrees to deal with secularists and even communists means that "religioun" is just an excuse for a political control.

The honest answer is that "Islamism" or political Islam only has worked successfully when it is a basic direction and those that attempt to follow "sharia" by the letter have failed. Iran is a good example of theocracy in name but in fact a front for political control by the Revolutionary Guard and the theocrat at the top (the Grand Ayatollah) actually not really doing much except keeping in power.

If the United States does not want to look the backward hypocrit then it cannot single out one of the main faiths on the planet and follow the bigotted line that some fringe-dwellers, profiteers and evangalist crusaders would like.

They must concentrate on targetting radicalism in all its areas and of course those that wage war against us and our hard-earned values.

Leticia said...

Jersey, nope, don't think so. And that link denied me access. I am not sure where you got the idea that Christians are terrorists, I doubt that very much. Most of us are pacifists and would never intentionally harm an innocent person or child, unlike radical Muslims who will kill anyone that stands in their way.

MK, which just proved my point.

liberaldude, either contribute to the conversation and add a legitimate comment or don't bother commenting at all. Insults will not get the attention you want here at this blog. Okay?

Karen, how right you are my friend, sad, huh?

Teresa, and still so many are blind to it all. Why would anyone in their right mind choose tyranny over freedom?

DC, you cannot separate Islam from radical Muslims. They scream "Allah Akbar" when they are in the middle of butchering someone, so, it is all about their religious views.

dmarks said...

JMJ said: "dmarks, I have yet to hear one single solitary original thought from you, ever."

Why do you resort to silly insults when you have no idea what you are talking about?

"To call atheism a religion is just stupid."

Perfect example of you have no idea what you are talking about.

There are two kinds of atheism

1) The kind that lacks a belief (rather like agnosticism)

2) The kind that asserts a faith concerning deity.

The second one is clearly religious. It's not "stupid" to know this fact.

"It's like saying walking is driving without a car."

Your analogy didn't work at all.

"To say it has the "bloodiest record" is just stupid."

No, it is well informed. I'm sorry, this is another unoriginal thought. I admit. I'm not making this up. I am merely informed about history. The bloodiest record is factual.

"Atheism is a relatively new phenomena, religion has been around for thousands of years."

The #2 type of atheism is just a religion like any other.

"Do you really believe more people have died in the cause of a hundred years of [the religion of Atheism] than thousands of years of [other religions that are not Atheist]?

"Do you really want to sound that stupid?"

This is clearly one of those comments where you kind of forgot to proofread before you committed the comment. You are batting 0 of 100 here.

Jez is right about the proportions. And the great Atheist purges of the 20th century were quite huge.

"But if you do truly adhere to the actually, textual tenets of the Big Three monotheistic faiths, they are horribly violent and cruel."

Now you are speaking like a real religious bigot. Bashing those who dare to have a different faith from you own.

--------------

Jez said: "atheism seems like a strange thing to complain about when you've got dictatorship...,"

The faith-based atheism is part and parcel of this. I run into far more arrogant ayatollah-type atheists who want to force their "superior" faith on those of lesser religions than I do from other faiths.

dmarks said...

Leticia said: "DC, you cannot separate Islam from radical Muslims. They scream "Allah Akbar" when they are in the middle of butchering someone, so, it is all about their religious views."

You are right. I will disagree with DCC on this just as I disagree with him on the Moorish invaders who brought the worst of Islam to Europe and brutalized Iberia for hundreds of years.

Al Qaeda and the Muslim terrorists are very religions, and very Islamic. This is a fact. Even though I strongly disagree with tarring all, or even most Muslims with the terrorist/extremist label this minority so richly deserves.

Z said...

Leticia, can you BELIEVE the leftists don't even GET how serious this is?

I'm convinced they're being threatened..even Obama and Holder can't be THIS naive, THIS pandering. There just has to be a limit, wouldn't you THINK?

jez said...

"I run into far more arrogant ayatollah-type atheists who want to force their "superior" faith on those of lesser religions than I do from other faiths."

this may be more a function of the type of people you run into than anything else... it's likely you don't have any actual ayatollahs, for example, in your social circle.

The most keen anti-religion debaters that I know of simply want to argue religion off its pedestal (and despite most religious people's persecution complex, most religions are given special treatment compared to other ideas), they don't want to ban religion. This is a function of the types of people in *my* social circle of course; I know such atheists (have) exist(ed), but I don't know any; do you?

I still think you're wrong about atheism being a religion, but we've talked about that before: if you remember that conversation, you already know why you're wrong.

dmarks said...

Atheism is only a religion for those who assert the faith that there's no god, no deity, etc. I'm not sure whether Jersey is one of these.

This type of atheist, and their beliefs, should be treated no differently than any other religion. Because that's all it is.

jez said...

Atheism, like theism, may be a tenet of a religion, but neither atheism nor theism, by themselves, are examples of a religion.

dmarks said...

But it can be a religion in itself, just like theism is a religion in itself for those who passionately assert there's a God or Goddess without defining him/her.

jez said...

I'll leave it up to any remaining readers to decide for themselves whether your language is generally useful or not.

In this specific conversation, we shouldn't forget that the purpose for you to claim atheism is a religion is so that you may blame it for the 20th century's mostly communist purges, the same way that Jersey blames established religions for their violence.

The difference is that religious violence is sometimes specifically commanded by the religion's deity or by holy writ. Violence perpetrated by atheists is never inspired by atheism so directly as that.

dmarks said...

"Violence perpetrated by atheists is never inspired by atheism so directly as that."

How much more "direct" can you get than China's war against Tibet's Buddhist clergy? With hundreds of thousands of victims? And the socialists do have their "holy writ" in the writings of Lenin and Marx, and especially Mao's little red book of scripture.

"we shouldn't forget that the purpose for you to claim atheism is a religion is so that you may blame..."

In this discussion yes. But I point out the fact of strong atheism being a faith in other discussions especially with those strong atheists who assert (like arrogant theists often do) that their religion is logically superior to other faiths and deserves special treatment.

jez said...

"the socialists do have their "holy writ" in the writings of Lenin and Marx, and especially Mao's little red book"

socialism !== atheism
Truth is, there is no atheist holy writ that demands violence.

"[arrogant theists often assert] that their religion is logically superior to other faiths and deserves special treatment."

What sort of special treatment?
Religions (real ones) demand special treatment, such as the muslim in Leticia's recent story who demanded special leave for a pilgrimage. I've no idea what special treatment atheists demand.

Atheism is the sensible default attitude to take towards invisible gods: if I told you about one that you'd never heard of now, you would by default not believe that it exists. In that sense, it is superior.

I'm sure you find that arrogant, but forgive me for considering atheism is logically superior to theism, after all why else would I be atheist? How is the above paragraph worse than christian apologetics? Isn't it better to be what you perceive as arrogant than to eg. burn witches and heretics?

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

"Religions (real ones) demand special treatment, such as the muslim in Leticia's recent story who demanded special leave for a pilgrimage. I've no idea what special treatment atheists demand."

In the case of the strong (of faith) atheists, it is the demand that their faith be treated as superior/logical/scientific/rational and other faiths not be.

"Atheism is the sensible default attitude to take towards invisible gods"

That's a perfect example of a faith assertion that strong atheists mean. People of other religions with other views assert that their faiths are the sensible default logic. But they are all the same.

"I'm sure you find that arrogant"

Perhaps, but that would be for sure if you are claiming that your religious assertion is better than those of others.

"but forgive me for considering atheism is logically superior to theism"

And you are pretty much doing this. This puts you in the same category as arrogant theists. They, too, are so sure that their faith is logically/etc superior.

"after all why else would I be atheist?"

Just like, why else would the others be Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc etc etc?

"How is the above paragraph worse than christian apologetics?"

It's the same, really. Which is why such assertions and attitudes all deserve to be treated alike in the public sphere. And yes, this has been my main point. Such assertions about religion (be it strong atheism, or other faiths) are really all pretty much the same thing.

"Isn't it better to be what you perceive as arrogant than to eg. burn witches and heretics?"

Atheist zealots have killed those they believe to be religious heretics in really huge numbers.

jez said...

"[Atheism is the sensible default attitude to take towards invisible gods]

That's a perfect example of a faith assertion that strong atheists mean."

It's not a faith assertion. In general, the sensible default is not to believe in entities for which there is no evidence, which an invisible god counts as.

"People of other religions with other views assert that their faiths are the sensible default logic."

Not at all, a religion is never sensible default logic in the absence of evidence. Believers argue that there is special evidence for their own religion. Eg. Christians would argue that the gospels represent sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection, they wouldn't argue that the resurrection is what you should believe if there were no evidence.

"Atheist zealots have killed those they believe to be religious heretics in really huge numbers."

Atheists who happen to be zealots for some other idea such as marxism, perhaps.

dmarks said...

Jez: According to one's faith, there are varying views of what the most sensible default is.

IMHO, the ones with the most sensible default tend to be the weak atheists or agnostics. They simply do not make faith assertions.

"Not at all, a religion is never sensible default logic"

Unless it is your own, apparently. Again, those of different religions have faiths different from you own, and disagree.

"Atheists who happen to be zealots for some other idea such as marxism, perhaps."

Yeah, and the Crusaders were just looking for gold....

D Charles QC said...

"They scream "Allah Akbar" when they are in the middle of butchering someone, so, it is all about their religious views"

Actually a Muslim says "Allahu Akbar" even if they fall down a stairs, have a baby or see something beautiful and though it certainly can be called religious it is common speech.

My point is that sure many or most Muslims would be considered on average reasonably faithful and religous, but in reality the radicals and leaders of terrorists are like the rest of the world - after power and political more than based on faith.

Yes dmarks disagrees with the standard academic view and somehow assumes that the "Moors" were more brutal and detrimental to Iberia than the Franks or Castillians. We who actually do follow history and academic views do not try and distort it for political reasons.

dmarks said...

The academic views you have quoted also use the term Moors. So there's no need to use quotes around it. And there's plenty of "Standard" history which shows how brutal and intolerant this occupation was. Hardly anything worth celebrating.

Leticia said...

DC, if you don't believe it is not about religion, than I must say that you have the blinders on. It's ALWAYS about their religion, that's what keeps them going and believing they are doing it in the name of their god, Allah.

jez said...

dmarks, you are confusing "belief" with "default position".

In the absence of compelling evidence, any of the (real) religions would be an insane choice as a default position. The only non-mad one would be secular atheism.

This is not a belief. By all means believe in a religion -- maybe you find some evidence compelling. But none of them work as a default. You must be moved to believe in a religion, you shouldn't need to be moved off one.

dmarks said...

Jez: Theistic apologizes have just as compelling arguments about their position being the default.

I guess it all depends on what your faith leans toward, as to which one you accept.

D Charles QC said...

dmarks, I put the quote around Moors for the benefit of others - the word "Al Andalous" as well as "Moors", "the Muslims" and "Berbers" are also but the first is the only accurate other than actual kindom titles.

My point has always been that the reality, which has been studed and well documented, states that the period of Muslim rule in southrn Iberia has AS ANY OTHER rule been equaly mixed in brutality or benefit to those living there. Additionally, as a total, less detrimental than the predecessors and certainly those immediately after.

That is why I use the term "academically", because believing that somehow the 800 years of Andalousi rule was somehow bleeding the land dry, constantly abusing non-Muslims and destructive and yet the predecessors or the Castillians afterwards is simply make-believe. Do not forget that land was never a united Spain and that the Castillians were considered by locals just as much invaders afterward AND did blead the region dry and made it a backwater for the next 200 years with Jews and non-complient Christians persecuted, murdered and forced into exile.

D Charles QC said...

Leticia,

I did not say it has nothing to do with religion, I said it has "more to do with" politics than faith and it is the politics that is driving it (ie power and control) than actual scriptures. I have given enough examples of what theologically does not work within their faith, explain for me why the anomalies? Simply put if they were true to their faith Al Qaeda and other radical groups would never have worked.

Sure there are a huge number of ultra religous conservatives who's faith is driving them, that is not being disputed, I am simply saying that the radical organisations behind them and the provocating and rallying of them is most certainly not - particularly the jihad and terror movement.

That is why the FBI and other governments around the world correctly have pointed out that it is a mistake to blame Islam or the Muslim world - because it is politics not faith that is the enemy. To say otherwise is, in my mind, simply a form of bigotry.

In fact every radical movement, even non-Muslim is political.

jez said...

Please rehearse one of these compelling arguments in favour of a real religion as a default.

dmarks said...

You have already presented one. At least one you felt was compelling in your own faith.

jez said...

Don't be gnomic - do you want to put this idea across or not?

dmarks said...

It all depends on your faith as to which statement you find to be "logically" superior.

Leticia said...

DC, while I see and understand your point of view, I believe it is flawed. Their driving force is their faith, without that blind faith they would be radicals. They follow the teachings of the Qu'ran to such an extreme extent.

Just as some people followed Jim Jones and other lunatic men who thought they were following biblical principle, but twisted it to meet their sick agenda.

D Charles QC said...

Leticia,

I think this is actually "the debate" and in particular for the Muslims. How much of their faith is culture and simply power grabbing by their clerics (and personalities.

A good example is Arab dominance in the faith. Most Muslims are in fact not Arab (for example Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation). Some Arabs like to assume the smug opinion that their cultural practices are Islamic and they often get a cold-shoulder response from non-Arab Muslims. At the same time, some hard-line elements such as the Wahhabi and Salafi sects push it to the extreme and so their followers whom are not Arab are mimics of Arab culture. The burqa and niqab (the face covering and dressing in the total black covering) are perfect examples. They are not Islamic at all but simply tribal cultural practices. There is in fact no evidence that 7th century women in Arabia covered their faces - it is 9the century, and the burqa and face covering is banned from Cairo's - and the world's most famous Islamic university (Al Azhaar).

Sure faith is critical but how much does it get blown-out by politics? Not only the corruption but the hidden (or not so hidden) agendas. Remember one important point, which I mentioned previously, groups like Al Qaeda actually cross over lines that traditionally thier faithfull are unable. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are theologically contrary to each other. Taliabinism is a bastardisation of Wahhabi-like Islam and historic tribal traditions. If you try that in Saudi Arabia you will be imprisoned and Imams will condemn you constantly. Why is that?

It is an interesting debate and is becoming a hot topic. That is also one of the main reasons the State, Defence and Justice Departments in the US (and here in Britain) are now making sure they do not embarass themselves by following bigotted lines. I agree with that decision.

jez said...

Dmarks, why are you so shy about this? It is not in keeping with your character.
Please go ahead and put down an argument for some real religion as a default, an argument which you consider to be equivalent to mine for secular atheism (which is really just a corollary to Occam's razor).

With regards to this argument, my default position (ho-ho) is that you can't do it and in the absence of evidence that you can, that is what I shall believe.
Of course, as soon as you provide any evidence, I might be in a position to reconsider.