Terrorism

[afx114]

How about fighting terrorism this way instead?

[surveyor]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/inside-the-ring-31336833//print/

Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism consultant to law enforcement agencies and the military, said he expects more attacks like the one that occurred at Fort Hood because the Pentagon so far is unable to produce a “threat model” that correctly identifies the threat posed by both internal and external jihadism.

“The case of Maj. Hasan is Exhibit A on existing jihadist threats from inside the military,” Mr. Poole told Inside the Ring. “Had anyone dared to officially protest Hasan’s extremism, they would not only have been risking their military careers, but would have certainly faced a harassment lawsuit fully supported by [some Muslim] groups. … It’s not that warning signs were missed, but they were willfully ignored.”

Mr. Poole said Gen. Casey’s comments on diversity were shocking and indicate that “the Pentagon brass are doubling-down on the see-no-evil, speak-no-evil culture responsible for this incident. And more soldiers are going to die until that changes.”

Among the other incidents of Muslim extremism in the military, Mr. Poole noted the case of Ali Mohamed, an al Qaeda military chief who was an Army sergeant at the Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, N.C., during the late 1980s. There he gathered intelligence before defecting to help al Qaeda with its war-fighting skills. Mohamed was allowed to continue working at Fort Bragg despite warnings from both the Army and Egypt’s military that he held jihadist beliefs, Mr. Poole said.

Mr. Poole said the military has policies designed to ferret out neo-Nazis, gang members and those with psychological problems from the ranks but is unwilling to do the same with radical Muslims. “Why these existing rules could not be applied to jihadism can only be explained by the delusion that there is no problem to solve,” he said.

“If jihadist ideology is so isolated from institutional Islam as Islamic groups claim, they should have no real fear of trying to weed out the jihadists in the military, because it has nothing to do with the thousands of Muslims who are serving honorably and courageously,” he said.

[surveyor]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/inside-the-ring-31336833//print/

Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism consultant to law enforcement agencies and the military, said he expects more attacks like the one that occurred at Fort Hood because the Pentagon so far is unable to produce a “threat model” that correctly identifies the threat posed by both internal and external jihadism.

“The case of Maj. Hasan is Exhibit A on existing jihadist threats from inside the military,” Mr. Poole told Inside the Ring. “Had anyone dared to officially protest Hasan’s extremism, they would not only have been risking their military careers, but would have certainly faced a harassment lawsuit fully supported by [some Muslim] groups. … It’s not that warning signs were missed, but they were willfully ignored.”

Mr. Poole said Gen. Casey’s comments on diversity were shocking and indicate that “the Pentagon brass are doubling-down on the see-no-evil, speak-no-evil culture responsible for this incident. And more soldiers are going to die until that changes.”

Among the other incidents of Muslim extremism in the military, Mr. Poole noted the case of Ali Mohamed, an al Qaeda military chief who was an Army sergeant at the Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, N.C., during the late 1980s. There he gathered intelligence before defecting to help al Qaeda with its war-fighting skills. Mohamed was allowed to continue working at Fort Bragg despite warnings from both the Army and Egypt’s military that he held jihadist beliefs, Mr. Poole said.

Mr. Poole said the military has policies designed to ferret out neo-Nazis, gang members and those with psychological problems from the ranks but is unwilling to do the same with radical Muslims. “Why these existing rules could not be applied to jihadism can only be explained by the delusion that there is no problem to solve,” he said.

“If jihadist ideology is so isolated from institutional Islam as Islamic groups claim, they should have no real fear of trying to weed out the jihadists in the military, because it has nothing to do with the thousands of Muslims who are serving honorably and courageously,” he said.

[surveyor]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/inside-the-ring-31336833//print/

Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism consultant to law enforcement agencies and the military, said he expects more attacks like the one that occurred at Fort Hood because the Pentagon so far is unable to produce a “threat model” that correctly identifies the threat posed by both internal and external jihadism.

“The case of Maj. Hasan is Exhibit A on existing jihadist threats from inside the military,” Mr. Poole told Inside the Ring. “Had anyone dared to officially protest Hasan’s extremism, they would not only have been risking their military careers, but would have certainly faced a harassment lawsuit fully supported by [some Muslim] groups. … It’s not that warning signs were missed, but they were willfully ignored.”

Mr. Poole said Gen. Casey’s comments on diversity were shocking and indicate that “the Pentagon brass are doubling-down on the see-no-evil, speak-no-evil culture responsible for this incident. And more soldiers are going to die until that changes.”

Among the other incidents of Muslim extremism in the military, Mr. Poole noted the case of Ali Mohamed, an al Qaeda military chief who was an Army sergeant at the Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, N.C., during the late 1980s. There he gathered intelligence before defecting to help al Qaeda with its war-fighting skills. Mohamed was allowed to continue working at Fort Bragg despite warnings from both the Army and Egypt’s military that he held jihadist beliefs, Mr. Poole said.

Mr. Poole said the military has policies designed to ferret out neo-Nazis, gang members and those with psychological problems from the ranks but is unwilling to do the same with radical Muslims. “Why these existing rules could not be applied to jihadism can only be explained by the delusion that there is no problem to solve,” he said.

“If jihadist ideology is so isolated from institutional Islam as Islamic groups claim, they should have no real fear of trying to weed out the jihadists in the military, because it has nothing to do with the thousands of Muslims who are serving honorably and courageously,” he said.

[surveyor]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/inside-the-ring-31336833//print/

Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism consultant to law enforcement agencies and the military, said he expects more attacks like the one that occurred at Fort Hood because the Pentagon so far is unable to produce a “threat model” that correctly identifies the threat posed by both internal and external jihadism.

“The case of Maj. Hasan is Exhibit A on existing jihadist threats from inside the military,” Mr. Poole told Inside the Ring. “Had anyone dared to officially protest Hasan’s extremism, they would not only have been risking their military careers, but would have certainly faced a harassment lawsuit fully supported by [some Muslim] groups. … It’s not that warning signs were missed, but they were willfully ignored.”

Mr. Poole said Gen. Casey’s comments on diversity were shocking and indicate that “the Pentagon brass are doubling-down on the see-no-evil, speak-no-evil culture responsible for this incident. And more soldiers are going to die until that changes.”

Among the other incidents of Muslim extremism in the military, Mr. Poole noted the case of Ali Mohamed, an al Qaeda military chief who was an Army sergeant at the Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, N.C., during the late 1980s. There he gathered intelligence before defecting to help al Qaeda with its war-fighting skills. Mohamed was allowed to continue working at Fort Bragg despite warnings from both the Army and Egypt’s military that he held jihadist beliefs, Mr. Poole said.

Mr. Poole said the military has policies designed to ferret out neo-Nazis, gang members and those with psychological problems from the ranks but is unwilling to do the same with radical Muslims. “Why these existing rules could not be applied to jihadism can only be explained by the delusion that there is no problem to solve,” he said.

“If jihadist ideology is so isolated from institutional Islam as Islamic groups claim, they should have no real fear of trying to weed out the jihadists in the military, because it has nothing to do with the thousands of Muslims who are serving honorably and courageously,” he said.

[surveyor]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/inside-the-ring-31336833//print/

Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism consultant to law enforcement agencies and the military, said he expects more attacks like the one that occurred at Fort Hood because the Pentagon so far is unable to produce a “threat model” that correctly identifies the threat posed by both internal and external jihadism.

“The case of Maj. Hasan is Exhibit A on existing jihadist threats from inside the military,” Mr. Poole told Inside the Ring. “Had anyone dared to officially protest Hasan’s extremism, they would not only have been risking their military careers, but would have certainly faced a harassment lawsuit fully supported by [some Muslim] groups. … It’s not that warning signs were missed, but they were willfully ignored.”

Mr. Poole said Gen. Casey’s comments on diversity were shocking and indicate that “the Pentagon brass are doubling-down on the see-no-evil, speak-no-evil culture responsible for this incident. And more soldiers are going to die until that changes.”

Among the other incidents of Muslim extremism in the military, Mr. Poole noted the case of Ali Mohamed, an al Qaeda military chief who was an Army sergeant at the Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, N.C., during the late 1980s. There he gathered intelligence before defecting to help al Qaeda with its war-fighting skills. Mohamed was allowed to continue working at Fort Bragg despite warnings from both the Army and Egypt’s military that he held jihadist beliefs, Mr. Poole said.

Mr. Poole said the military has policies designed to ferret out neo-Nazis, gang members and those with psychological problems from the ranks but is unwilling to do the same with radical Muslims. “Why these existing rules could not be applied to jihadism can only be explained by the delusion that there is no problem to solve,” he said.

“If jihadist ideology is so isolated from institutional Islam as Islamic groups claim, they should have no real fear of trying to weed out the jihadists in the military, because it has nothing to do with the thousands of Muslims who are serving honorably and courageously,” he said.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

Isn’t saying this bit about Islamofacism and the Koran something akin to saying that the difficulty with evolution that many Christians have is the fault of the Bible because it said the earth was created and populated with all living things in 6 days? If some nut case reads his Bible and passes them out all day long, then goes and kills an abortion practioneer, is it the fault of the Bible?
Can you blame someones interpretation and use of an old book on the book itself? How about when many people , including many or most adherents to the faith don’t? When in the case of “Islamofascism” many hundreds of years have passed without the book having any such role.

If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book. I think they feel like they are defending their civilization and interests and the book is secondary, but because of it’s prominence and authority in the faith, it can be used as a weapon. That some people do use it for affecting war making, should come as no surprise.Maybe they do believe it fully. Perhaps if the bible had not existed George Bush would never have been elected and Iraq would not have been blessed with shock and awe.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

Isn’t saying this bit about Islamofacism and the Koran something akin to saying that the difficulty with evolution that many Christians have is the fault of the Bible because it said the earth was created and populated with all living things in 6 days? If some nut case reads his Bible and passes them out all day long, then goes and kills an abortion practioneer, is it the fault of the Bible?
Can you blame someones interpretation and use of an old book on the book itself? How about when many people , including many or most adherents to the faith don’t? When in the case of “Islamofascism” many hundreds of years have passed without the book having any such role.

If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book. I think they feel like they are defending their civilization and interests and the book is secondary, but because of it’s prominence and authority in the faith, it can be used as a weapon. That some people do use it for affecting war making, should come as no surprise.Maybe they do believe it fully. Perhaps if the bible had not existed George Bush would never have been elected and Iraq would not have been blessed with shock and awe.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

Isn’t saying this bit about Islamofacism and the Koran something akin to saying that the difficulty with evolution that many Christians have is the fault of the Bible because it said the earth was created and populated with all living things in 6 days? If some nut case reads his Bible and passes them out all day long, then goes and kills an abortion practioneer, is it the fault of the Bible?
Can you blame someones interpretation and use of an old book on the book itself? How about when many people , including many or most adherents to the faith don’t? When in the case of “Islamofascism” many hundreds of years have passed without the book having any such role.

If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book. I think they feel like they are defending their civilization and interests and the book is secondary, but because of it’s prominence and authority in the faith, it can be used as a weapon. That some people do use it for affecting war making, should come as no surprise.Maybe they do believe it fully. Perhaps if the bible had not existed George Bush would never have been elected and Iraq would not have been blessed with shock and awe.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

Isn’t saying this bit about Islamofacism and the Koran something akin to saying that the difficulty with evolution that many Christians have is the fault of the Bible because it said the earth was created and populated with all living things in 6 days? If some nut case reads his Bible and passes them out all day long, then goes and kills an abortion practioneer, is it the fault of the Bible?
Can you blame someones interpretation and use of an old book on the book itself? How about when many people , including many or most adherents to the faith don’t? When in the case of “Islamofascism” many hundreds of years have passed without the book having any such role.

If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book. I think they feel like they are defending their civilization and interests and the book is secondary, but because of it’s prominence and authority in the faith, it can be used as a weapon. That some people do use it for affecting war making, should come as no surprise.Maybe they do believe it fully. Perhaps if the bible had not existed George Bush would never have been elected and Iraq would not have been blessed with shock and awe.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

Isn’t saying this bit about Islamofacism and the Koran something akin to saying that the difficulty with evolution that many Christians have is the fault of the Bible because it said the earth was created and populated with all living things in 6 days? If some nut case reads his Bible and passes them out all day long, then goes and kills an abortion practioneer, is it the fault of the Bible?
Can you blame someones interpretation and use of an old book on the book itself? How about when many people , including many or most adherents to the faith don’t? When in the case of “Islamofascism” many hundreds of years have passed without the book having any such role.

If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book. I think they feel like they are defending their civilization and interests and the book is secondary, but because of it’s prominence and authority in the faith, it can be used as a weapon. That some people do use it for affecting war making, should come as no surprise.Maybe they do believe it fully. Perhaps if the bible had not existed George Bush would never have been elected and Iraq would not have been blessed with shock and awe.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.

[surveyor]

Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.

[surveyor]

Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.

[surveyor]

Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.

[surveyor]

Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.

[Author]

Posts