Jihad and the Growing Surrender of American Counter terrorism
By revdauphinee
@revdauphinee (5703)
United States
September 20, 2008 1:50pm CST
In the "stealth Jihad" war of ideas over the past year, one American institution after another has signaled its willingness to surrender to the advocates of Islamic supremacism -- our homeland security, our military, and our law enforcement. Islamic supremacist groups have "guided" such American government organizations to create a "terror lexicon" that excludes "Jihad," to promote "progress" over "liberty," to blackball those who would confront the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic supremacists, to "train" our law enforcement, and to openly promote engagement with Islamic supremacist organizations as part of counterterrorism tactics.
Six months ago, the growing surrender in the war of ideas by America's counterterrorism community was seen by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) memorandum endorsing the DHS "terror lexicon" prohibiting the use of the terms such as "Jihad," "Islamist," "mujahedeen." This milestone was part of a trend that has been growing for nearly two years. Since the November 2006 mid-term elections resulting in a Democratic Congressional majority, a growing number in counterterrorist organizations have been moving towards promoting analysts that support negotiations, rather than confrontation, with Islamic supremacists. The belief among some is that, should the Democratic Party win the presidency, a new Democratic administration would seek such "engagement" policies. As the presidential campaign has heated up, this emphasis has accelerated in some counterterrorist organizations, which fear ending up on the outside looking in.
However, over the past seven years, a vacuum of strategic war planning on Islamic supremacism by the U.S. military, intelligence, and executive branch (seen in today's "war on extremism") has made America increasingly dependent on what little strategic thinking that has been available from the counterterrorism community. The growing surrender of counterterrorism groups to the policies of appeasement and "engagement," legitimizing Islamic supremacists, undermines one of the last remaining "strategic voices" on Jihad. Increasingly, the numbers are shrinking in counterterrorism communities who seek confrontation against Jihadists and Islamic supremacists; some voices are being marginalized and silenced. This growing surrender will require average American citizens to increase their activism in demanding that their government representatives confront Jihad and Islamic supremacism.
September 23 will mark yet another milestone in the growing surrender of America's counterterrorism organizations, as Capitol Hill will be used to promote the ideas of those who think America should "engage" with Islamic supremacist groups.
Using Capitol Hill to Promote Appeasement of Jihad and Islamic Supremacism
One day after the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Counterterrorism Blog announced a panel discussion to be held on 10 AM at September 23, 2008 at a U.S. Capitol building facility in Washington, D.C. (2255 Rayburn House Office Building). This discussion will provide a platform for Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank to promote their views that by engaging with Islamic supremacists and Jihadists, the West can dissuade them from pursuing Al-Qaeda-style terrorism.
Peter Bergen is associated with the New America Foundation and Paul Cruickshank is a contributing expert for the Counterterrorism Blog; both are also research fellows with the New York University's Center on Law and Security.
The September 23 meeting entitled "The Jihadists' Revolt Against Al Qaeda" is being co-sponsored by the Counterterrorism Blog and by the New America Foundation (described by Washington Post writer David Ignatius in February as "a liberal think tank.") The meeting is to discuss Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank's New Republic (TNR) June 2008 article "The Unraveling," where they ostensibly argue that there is a "jihadist revolt against Bin Laden." This is the basis for their argument that engagement with Islamic supremacists and anti-Al-Qaeda Jihadists will make "America safer," and that in a war of ideas with Islamic supremacists, "it is their ideas, not the West's, that matter."
1 person likes this
6 responses
@spriggan (169)
• Australia
28 Sep 08
an exmaple of usa's war on islam "they call war on terrorisme"
is IRAQ
a whole country destroyed for oil
what about gitmo? people going to jail for..."being muslims"
what goes around comes around,want peace? then leave islam alone.
don't enter the tiger's den and ask why it attacks you.
1 person likes this
@revdauphinee (5703)
• United States
28 Sep 08
if the tiger attacks you first 9/11 then the tiger should be put down!
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
21 Sep 08
This reminds me of what I heard about Anthony Eden who tried to negotiate with Hitler. Eden's umbrella was the symbol of appeasement, it lost Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, followed by Austria, and only when Hitler invaded Poland did Britain take notice and they got Winston Churchill.
Now we see America going down the same path, appeasing the terrorists, and that will not work. These terrorists do not use great armies to take over like Hitler did, they use people sneaking in, and blowing up buildings, increase their number by having large families and inviting in their relatives and family members. So before you know it, they have a large base to operate and yet those idiots in Congress refuse to see it.
You have to stand up for them, arrest those who are a threat, and deport them and take down the terrorist organizations by force and not be intimidated. Appeasement does not work.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
4 Oct 08
People forget to see the danger. There is so much media on the peaceful Muslims and so many against profiling that the radical or the true Muslims can get in and take over before anyone knows it. Thanks for the best response by the way.
@revdauphinee (5703)
• United States
21 Sep 08
try telling that to the peaceful Islam believers!so many people in this country refuse to see the enemy for who it is ,we will all be wearing burkas and hiding from the religious police before these folks wake up and smell the coffee!
1 person likes this
@revdauphinee (5703)
• United States
20 Sep 08
am not afraid to speak my mind and i am castigated for it but this old gal loves America I chose to live here and i don't want her ruined i love my freedom
@amirev777 (4117)
• India
29 Sep 08
hi friend
You are really a fearless warrior against the threat posed by islamic terrorists.your posts are really inspirational and motivating!Today I found another interesting verse from the quran.It is relating to massacre of disbelievers or 'kafirs'.It reads like this:
"Quran: Chapter 9, Verse 5: “Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and observe the Islamic lifestyle, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.”"
But then these terrorists have been killing people here in India even in this so called sacred months.
I am looking forward to more inspirational posts from you.
cheers!!
@amirev777 (4117)
• India
12 Oct 08
hi
yeah,i can understand ur feelings-here too in India we are losing lot of innocent lives to these religious fanatics,who believe they will attain paradise by killing the non-believers.their only aim is to ensure that there is no one else except muslims in this world.my brother who is based in US echoes ur feelings and here i India,the secular politicians with their eyes on muslim vote banks ensure that any resistance against these fanatics is throttled.
@Vladilyich1 (1454)
• Canada
22 Sep 08
Political correctness has gone waaay too far! In Canada, their courts are even ruling in favor of Islamic groups that are suing magazines and newspapers for slander. I expect that will hit the 'States soon, too.