HJS comments: I too had the idea that the Pentagon was smarter than to believe the “religion of peace” silliness. Radical Islam cannot be our friend; if you do not know why, then we need to talk. When someone says he intends to hurt you and even kill you, and then he breaks your windows, slashes your tires, and destroys your mail box, you should have an idea that the person is not joking. After he sets fire to your house a few times, blows up your car, sends you packages of white powder, shoots your dog, and puts piranha in your pool, it surely should give you the idea that he is not your friend and now you have to deal with him. By “deal”, I do not mean negotiate. If you fail to deal with your enemy properly—and I do not mean political correctness—you may as well commit supuku and name your enemy as beneficiary. I thought the Pentagon was made of sterner stuff; I know the troops are!
January 14, 2010
Exclusive: Political Correctness – a Deadly Infection
Tom McLaughlin
Only recently have I become aware of the depths to which political correctness has permeated our culture. I knew it was bad, but I didn’t know how bad. It’ll be the ruin of us if we don’t kill it and comb its nits out of our hair.
I began to get a clue at a private reception for Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders in Washington last February. After Wilders was escorted out by his bodyguards (radical Muslims ordered him killed for making a movie called Fitna), I found myself in extended conversation with a young Defense Department analyst who had been tasked by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to research and report on the ideology of our radical Muslim enemies. He immersed himself in Islamic law and came to the conclusion that it’s the radical Muslims who appear to have the doctrinal base in Islam, not the moderates.
He said that most of the highest officials at the Pentagon rejected his brief. Then they rejected the young man himself – and that was during the Bush Administration. The Pentagon, he said, “as an institution,” wanted to believe that the Radical Muslim interpretation of jihad, which is holy war against infidels worldwide – convert them or kill them, was an aberration.
I had hitherto believed that our National Security planners knew the threat, but were just being polite in their public statements. Not so, according to my young friend. Radical Muslims posing as moderates had more influence with Pentagon planners than he did, he told me. It was their advice the Pentagon was heeding. I’m withholding his name because that’s how he apparently wants it at this point. Last week he was interviewed by Bill Whittle of Pajamas TV (Go here, then click on "The Islamic Infiltration, Part 1") and appeared only in silhouette as he told his story.
Next, Whittle interviewed a former FBI special agent (also a silhouette) who spent most of his 15-year career working on the Islamic movement in the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Islamic doctrine. He said our Department of Homeland Security is being advised by people from the Council for American Islamic Relations or CAIR. The trouble is, he claims, “they’re a front for Hamas – a Radical Islamic organization. The Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America – ISNA – a huge financial entity for Hamas in the United States.”
A little background for readers: The Muslim Brotherhood, according to author Robert Spencer, spawned both Hamas and al Qaeda. Khalid Sheik Muhammed, who planned the September 11th attacks for al Qaeda and goes on trial in New York City soon, belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now back to the anonymous FBI agent in Whittle’s interview: “CAIR and ISNA (both closely affiliated with Hamas),” he said, “are the two groups that DOD, DHS, the State Department all use to do their Muslim outreach in North America. They sit in on brainstorming about investigative techniques that our agents are using in the field.”
“I have to stop you,” said Whittle, “because, frankly, that sounds so absurd that I have to really make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that the radicalized Muslim groups are invited in to learn our investigative techniques, that they’re invited in to get their feedback on how we’re going to fight against them? Is that what I understood you to say?”
“Yes,” he answered. “The General Counsel of the FBI invites them in as well as the ACLU and other groups in [to make sure that whatever our government agencies did] was okay and not offensive to these organizations. . . . that’s nothing short of outrageous.”
“So you’re giving away the farm in order to make sure their feelings don’t get hurt,” said Whittle.
Evidently, political correctness could be fatal.
“There’s no training for local law enforcement officials about the real nature of the threat,” said the agent. “The training they get is given by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“How did this happen?” asked Whittle. “How did [it] get this far?”
“The Muslim Brotherhood has a long-term strategy,” said the agent. “They’re well organized with hundreds of front groups that support their public relations, their research arms, they have insinuated themselves into our largest universities. They have Muslim Student Associations (MSA), which is [sic] the first Muslim Brotherhood organization that formed in the United States in 1963. MSA is on every major college campus in the United States recruiting people to the Brotherhood on our own campuses.”
No wonder we haven’t captured Osama bin Laden after eight years.
When we know how closely foxes are consulted on the design our National Security chicken coop, we can begin to understand why the White House said they weren’t sure Fort Hood’s Major Hasan was a radical Muslim after he shot more than 40 of our soldiers while yelling “Allahu Akbar!” or why he said the Christmas Pantybomber was “an isolated extremist.” We can understand why this is not called a war with Radical Islam and instead is referred to as “Overseas Contingency Operations.”
Radical Muslims are fanatic, yes, but they understand us better than we understand ourselves. They know we’re so infected with political correctness that we’re more afraid of offending them than we are of losing a war to them.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom McLaughlin Tom is a history teacher and a regular weekly columnist for newspapers in Maine and New Hampshire. He writes about political and social issues, history, family, education and Radical Islam. E-mail him at tommclaughlin@fairpoint.net.
1 comment:
This is more of the PC thing, taken to extremes.
There is an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year's term was "Political Correctness."
The winner wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream liberal media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
I find that, for the most part, I agree. I probably would have used " a stick of dynamite by the safe end", but the point is the same. LOL
Post a Comment