Saturday, January 26, 2008

Mohammed irrationally fearful of his own religion

Those who say, "Islam requires violence against non-Muslims," are demonized as "Islamophobes."

Mohammed transmitted Allah's command to, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5), and confessed, "I have been made victorious with terror . . . ." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Clearly, Mohammed was an Islamophobe.

Reuters obfuscating for jihad

Like almost everyone else in Western government and media, the author and editor responsible for this piece of jihad-friendly Newspeak bend over backwards to avoid laying the blame where it lies -- the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

At least they used "Islam" in the piece; in some countries, that'll get you arrested.

A few lines from their report on some Religionists of Peace planning to wage that "peaceful inner struggle" in various locations across Europe:
MADRID (Reuters) - Islamist extremists were planning attacks across Europe . . . .
Just say "Muslims."

Adding "-ist" to "Islam" here is deceptive, for it implies that the bloodletting in which these animals were about to engage is inconsistent with the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

Adding "extremist" provides another layer of opaqueness.

Reuters must supply their reporters and editors with Internet access. That Allah and his false prophet command offensive warfare against those who refuse to convert or submit to their tyranny is quickly discoverable to anyone with a search engine.
The Al Qaeda-inspired cell planned to attack the Barcelona metro and other targets in Spain, Germany, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom, said the bomber turned police informant.
And by whom or what are these monsters inspired? Only their god and prophet who command,
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
Continuing with Reuters:
In testimony that led to the arrest of 14 South Asians last Saturday, the informant told police the group had a preference for attacks on public transport, especially metro systems, El Pais newspaper reported. "If we attack the metro, the emergency services can't get there . . . ."
They think of everything, don't they?

Notice the term, "South Asians." Indians? Roma? Nepalese? Must be Sri Lankans.

The problem is neither race, ethnicity, nor national origin, it is an ideology.

It is Islam.
[. . . ] Spain's government said the Barcelona cell was preparing to carry out the metro attack either last weekend or in the following 15 days. Two other pairs of suicide bombers had been assigned targets elsewhere in Spain, another was to attack Germany, three were given objectives in France and two more were to strike Portugal. The informant said the Barcelona cell had six suicide bombers and other members responsible for preparing explosives and planning attacks in other European states.

. . . after the first attack, but if they are not carried out, there will be a second attack, a third in Spain. And next Germany, France, Portugal, United Kingdom," the head of the cell told the police informer, El Pais reported. The Barcelona bombings could have taken place less than two months before Spain's March 9 general election. Islamic militants attacked Madrid commuter trains days before Spain's last general election in March 2004, killing 191 people and wounding 1,800. They said the attacks were made in revenge for Spain sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.
And the Spanish proved the efficacy of their efforts.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Admission by omission

Muslims Against Sharia -- a group working against those aspects of Islamic theology and law which "promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination" against non-Muslims and females -- is publicizing their efforts at removing the Qur'anic foundation for such evil.

The list of verses -- including, it appears, entire surahs -- can be found here. There are also numerous ahadith that need purging. And most of Mohammed's latter years.

It is instructive to note that in order to demolish the Islamic justifications for such barbarity, one must remove numerous passages of Islam's foundational texts.

(So much for the idea that "Islam is peace," though MAS would say that those passages requiring violence and oppression are not from Allah.)

The fact that this group of heroic Muslims is a tiny minority when compared to their orthodox coreligionists demonstrates also the fundamental error of the President's public statements on the legitimacy of those who maim and kill for Allah.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Perhaps he didn't know all that much about European politics in the first place

Which calls into question his judgment regarding the "experts" in whom he put his trust.

You can't hide what happened here by calling it a "typo." It's called, "ignorance," and it should have served as a caution against rushing to judgment and condemning as Nazi-sympathizers -- absent conclusive evidence -- those opposing jihad.

If Charles can err regarding Lionheart's sympathies, if Lionheart can err regarding the nature of the BNP, if Pamela can err regarding Charles's intentions, then all should be able to step back, take a deep breath, and admit where they went wrong.

This whole 'blog fight (that's silly, isn't it?) has been four months of friendly-fire among people of good will who should never have been arguing in the first place.

An important question regarding a political group led to an overreaction by a fellow anti-jihadist. Since then, it's been one spiteful, vindictive ad hominem after another, sustained by the statements of experts some of whom would not have been trusted perhaps but for the fact that their posts supported the 'blogger's position against their opponents. (Extreme leftists would never demonize their political opponents, would they?)

Charles wants to avoid allying with racists and Pamela denounces the "British Nazi Party" (BNP). Both oppose the tyranny of Allah.

So regrettable. Will either admit their error(s)? Will either apologize? Who will take the first step toward reconciliation?

Here was Charles's unsteady first step into the unfamiliar world of European politics (emphasis mine):
#13 Charles 10/24/07 12:07:46 pm . . .
re: #11 Defeater of Defeatism
"Dutch Vlaams Belang party"? Dutch-speaking perhaps. They're Belgian, or more specifically, Flemish. But Dutch, not so much.

Will add additional thoughts later on (being a Dutch citizen residing in Belgium and all).
Thanks. Typo corrected.
Here's more evidence that perhaps a little more research is needed, in response to a post by Charles gloating that "Lionheart drops the mask" regarding the BNP:
#489 Amillennialist 1/20/08 2:28:07 am . . .
re: #486 Pickle
re: #476 gunjam
Well said. We are kicking a guy who has taken a bullet -- not for being a fascist -- but for CRITICIZING JIHADISTS!

No. Charles defended him for doing that, and so do I. We're all excoriating him for his association with the BNP, which is not mitigated by his anti-jihadism.
Following links I found this from Lionheart:
I have written posts in support of the BNP in the past which I will explain . . .

. . . within the BNP there is an internal struggle between what has been termed the modernizers and traditionalists.

The modernizers want to reform the party to take it away from its anti-semetic and white supremacist roots and make it more inclusive for the British people and thus make it a respectable electable political party within Great Britain.

. . .

Being non-political a year ago I never knew the complexities of political parties and their origins, but now I am becoming aware of some critical things that I cannot support which is why in my mind since this rebellion started I removed my support of the present BNP which can be proved with documented evidence.

Articles on my blog supporting the BNP were written months ago when the only people out there doing anything about the Islamification of Great Britain were the people of the BNP. I support any good and decent British citizen who is a BNP member who is not a racist, neo-Nazi fascist . . . .

I personally reject, racism, fascism and neo-Nazism and would never knowingly support those traits because it is not who I am as a person.

To answer your question; do I support the BNP? No.

. . .

Q. . . . The BNP charter claims that membership should be limited to whites only, do you support that?

A. No I do not support that because being whites only makes you a racist organization, I never wrote posts in support of the BNP because of this issue, I wrote posts in support of the BNP regarding other issues like the Islamification of my homeland, uncontrolled immigration and the injustice that is aimed at people like Mark Walker.

Q. Nick Griffin the party leader for the BNP has made some very anti-semitic statements. What are your views on Jews and on Isreal?

A. Putting my life on the line twice for Israel and its Jewish residents within the Holy Land, [?] and being a very vocal supporter through my blog should speak for itself.

. . .

Q. And the holocaust?

A. The Holocaust happened during the Second World War and we should not let it happen again as is stated throughout my blog . . .
Too much jumping to conclusions, too much mob mentality, too much uninformed, hair-triggered self-righteousness.

We need to stop the friendly-fire.

Private clarifications ought to precede public eviscerations.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

In defense of amillennialism

To one trying to link amillennialism to the Holocaust, from here:
falsehood . . . making noise . . . demonizing . . . libel . . . defensive . . . quibble . . . over a typo . . . petty . . . quote us chapter and verse and identify your translation or you're just making noise . . . dangerous and not Biblical.
A "typo"? Does that mean you had to search online to find out what amillennialism is? If so, then how can you accuse me of "noise" when you don't even know what the term means?

Out of all the possible articles available to humanity, how do you select one that misrepresents the idea that badly? What does that say about your judgment? Your intentions?

Still I will address your comments.

Speaking of "noise," this is from your link:
"The Church Stands in Proxy of Christ"

"Amillennialism is a belief . . . that the literal return of the Messiah . . . is not true . . . ."

". . . the rule of the church body politic . . . ."

". . . no millenial reign of Christ at all."

"Amillennialism lends itself to a diminishing of the Judaic birthright as firstborn of the chosen of God."

". . . the church "replaces" Israel . . . ."

"and in essence replaces even Christ himself on earth, becoming a self-ordained Christ -in -Proxy."

". . . the Church . . . sets itself in the stead of Christ and the Jewish nation, this position leads to the denigration of both . . . ."

"Instead of a millenium of the reign of Christ on earth, there becomes a "Messianic age" with a church and its figureheads as ushering in a utopian age, reinterpreting scripture in terms of church-initiated doctrine and dogma."

". . . the church replaces Christ as "decision maker" and the church replaces the Word of God as the final authority . . . the church confuses the sovereignty of God's dominion with the dominion given man."
That's a significant majority of the beginning o[f] your article.

It's all false.

Depending on whom you ask (someone trying to link the Biblical understanding of amillennialism with the Holocaust is either a malicious liar or stupendously ignorant), amillennialism is the belief (derived from Scripture) that Christ does reign on Earth through His word, the Church (all believers in Christ) endures the Great Tribulation, and Christ will return to deliver His people at the Last Day. The Biblical distinction between the Spiritual and Civil Kingdoms is recognized and upheld.

This understanding comes directly from the clear testimony of Scripture.

In Matthew 24, Jesus answers His disciples' questions about the destruction of the Temple and the End of the Age. Regarding the end, Christ says that it will come unexpectedly, and He notes the signs that will precede it. His description of it indicates that life will be going on as it always has, that Christians will be persecuted, and that His return will come without warning.

From the ESV:
"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:38, 39).
Or from the King James, 1611:
"For as in the dayes that were before the Flood, they were eating, and drinking, marrying, and giuing in mariage, vntill the day that Noe entred into the Arke, And knew not vntill the Flood came, and tooke them all away: so shall also the comming of the Sonne of man be" (Matthew 24:38, 39).
On the "true Israel," straight from the Apostle Paul who described himself as a "Hebrew of Hebrews," was an expert in the Law of Moses (he was a Pharisee), and who persecuted the Early Church.

Just before these comments Paul laments that he would go to hell in place of his fellow Jews:
"not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.'

"This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (Romans 9:6-9).
This echoes John the Baptist and his Cousin's charges against the Jewish religious leadership who counted their genetic history as sufficient for salvation, even though they rejected their God and His Messiah.

From John:
"do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham" (Matthew 3:9).
From his Cousin, the Son of God:
"They answered him, 'Abraham is our father.'

"Jesus said to them, 'If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did'" (John 8:39, 40).
And again back to Paul:
"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God" (Romans 2:28, 29).
On God's Chosen People, from the Apostle Peter, to Christians (who by this time were not only Jewish, but also Gentile):
"it stands in Scripture: 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.'

. . .

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:6, 9).
On Jew and Gentile being now one man in Christ, from Paul:
"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called 'the uncircumcision' by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility" (Ephesians 2:11-16).
And, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

As for the Tribulation, it's not some future event:
"I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 1:9).
A place at which confusion (and outright deception) comes is in misreading Revelation. Reading the New Testament texts regarding the end without Revelation leads to the commonsense understanding noted above from Matthew. People see the numbers and signs in Revelation -- which are intended to be understood symbolically, not literally -- and make up all sorts of nonsense.

Demonstrating that the visions John received by revelation contained symbolism:
"Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches" (Revelation 1:19, 20).
We know from Scripture that Christ resurrected physically, so this bit from Chapter 5 contains symbolism:
"And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth" (Revelation 5:6).
If you want to argue that Revelation does not use symbolism, would you say that Jesus in Heaven has a sword in His mouth? Or that there's only 144,000 people in Heaven?

As for the Apostles' expecting Christ's imminent return, here's a little from Paul:
"the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

"The night is far gone; the day is at hand" (Romans 13:11, 12).
From Peter:
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

"Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God" (2 Peter 3: 10-12).
And from John:
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.

"The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

"He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (Revelation 22:16-20)!
And from the author of the Letter to the Hebrews (possibly Paul):
"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near" (Hebrews 10:24, 25).
*Finally, Christ said regarding His kingdom:
"My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world" (John 18:36).

"nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Luke 17:21).
*Added 1/20

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Romney's plan to defeat jihad? Pay the jizya!

Jizya is the humiliating and oppressive head tax inflicted upon populations conquered by Islam -- just like Mohammed and his god commanded.

It is essentially what Mitt Romney has proposed to defeat jihad.

From here:
Hugh Hewitt is a conservative talk show host and author with a national audience. He likes to think he knows the intricacies of any particular issue relating to national politics.

Not too long ago, before the general public knew of CAIR's perfidy, Hugh invited one of their propagandists to appear on his show to spread their deception. Hugh was bombarded with phone calls and e-mails informing him of what his guest was.

If the cluelessness of those who are supposed to be our leaders weren't so tragic, what followed would be funny: Hugh scrambled desperately for an "expert" to counter his guest.

The best he could do was Frank Gaffney who, though he is knowledgeable in many areas regarding national security, knows only "radical extremist jihadism," not jihad and not Islam.

And Hugh was revulsed at the number of Neanderthals in his audience claiming that Islamic terrorism has something to do with Islam.

Since that time, Hugh has read several books on terrorism and interviewed on his program many "experts" on the subject, but (to my knowledge) he runs from Robert and his work like the plague. Whenever I've suggested him to Hugh as a guest, I've received no reply.

The same Hugh Hewitt who invited CAIR to speak on his national radio show is the same Hugh Hewitt who insists that it is the mujahideen who pervert Islam, not those who reject jihad.

He now throws around authoritatively terms like "radical jihadism" (sound familiar?), "Salafist," and "Qutb" (this too should sound familiar!), but he still denies the core fact that Allah and his false prophet command the enslavement or death of all who refuse to convert to Islam.

Despite numerous e-mails and phone calls, Hugh Hewitt continues to define Islam in terms of its heretics, apostates, and apologists. He believes that it is a "tiny minority of radically-extreme Islamo-fascist fundamentalist jihadism-ists" who've "hijacked a great world religion."

So, what does Hugh Hewitt have to do with Mitt Romney's position on jihad?

Hugh Hewitt wrote a book to help Romney get elected. Mitt is Hugh's guy. They use the same vocabulary on "jihadism." Mitt wants to throw unlimited Infidel money and manpower at jihad in hoping to "win [Muslim] hearts and minds."

If Romney really understands the Source and Sustenance of the global jihad, how can he propose such suicidal nonsense?

And how can Hugh cheerlead so vigorously for him?

Romney's "strategy" is both jizya and proof of a complete ignorance of what motivates Allah's War Against Humanity.

To assume otherwise is wishful thinking. All those suffering under the tyranny of Allah have had enough make-believe.

Unless a candidate makes and adheres to a public statement identifying the cause of the global jihad as the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, it would be foolish to assume knowledge or judgment any better than we've had the last six years.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Rather than mock Mohammed, let Mohammed mock himself

Noted here at Dhimmi Watch is another attempt by jihad's agents and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis to make anything less-than-complimentary of Mohammed a "hate crime." Only this time, it's not in the United (Islamic) Kingdom (UiK), where a blogger is being arrested for "inciting racial hatred" because he dares to tell the truth about Islam. Neither is this in Canada, where the target is Mark Steyn.

This is in America.

How tyrannical. How dishonest. How treacherous. How un-American. Those pushing for this ought to be dealt with in the harshest manner possible within the limits of the law. Does New England still tar-and-feather?

Mocking someone who takes himself so seriously his followers have to kill you does provide the mocker a sense of satisfaction at having defied tyranny and stupidity, but here's one alternative to simplistic taunting that can aid The War of Self-Defense Against Islam:
Islam is the religion that keeps on giving, because it boasts about those very texts that reveal its utter depravity.

I understand the visceral satisfaction to be enjoyed at mocking publicly the false prophet, but it would be much more productive to have -- instead of drive-by-derision -- quick, clear, concise citations of Islam's more unpalatable (for non-Muslims) "divine" mandates and statements and actions from and by Mohammed.

Recently, in the Comments for a MEMRI video at YouTube in which a Muslim scholar discusses the proper Islamic way to beat one's wife, an apparently Muslim poster dared someone to write anything more critical of Islam.

Naturally, I complied.

I posted only statements directly from Islam's "sacred" texts showing the prophet from hell to be a genocidal, enslaving, butchering, pedophile.

(It's hard to call it "abuse" when it comes straight from their own texts.)

There's been no reply yet from that poster.

The effect of distributing such quick, informational blurbs in American cities would be several. Uninformed non-Muslims who are ill-at-ease with Islam but are unable to articulate why will be emboldened to learn and share that learning. Uninformed Muslims will have to decide whether or not such a deity deserves their fealty. Informed Muslims will be put on alert that their nonsense will no longer continue under the cover of multiculturalist ignorance. Dhimmis -- especially in leadership positions in government, media, and academia -- will be able to spread their ignorance unchallenged no longer.
And here is an example of letting Islam speak for itself:
Mohammed as genocidal maniac:

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur'an 9:5).

Mohammed as terrorist:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Mohammed as butcher:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Mohammed as pedophile:

"My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down . . . I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old" (Tabari 9:131).

It's hard to call it "abuse" when it comes straight from your own "sacred" texts.

The American and British governments betraying to Islam those whom it is their duty to defend

A jihadist manages to secure the firing of one of the apparent few in our government who appear to understand Islam, a British citizen is being arrested for telling the truth about the Religion of Peace, and the adult candidates for President of the United States of America twist their tongues and intellects condemning "radical jihadist Islamofascist extremism" while assuring us that they have "great respect for Islam," a religion "perverted" by those wanting to establish the worldwide tyranny of Allah.

It was a tragic and horrifying scene at the debate tonight: Ron Paul running back and forth, his hair aflame yelling, "Islamophobe!" Rudy obliterating Paul's nonsense about America's foreign policy being the cause of the Greater Jihad but then destroying any hope for clarity from him on what motivates it, and Mitt actually using the word "jihad" but with a modifier.

McCain and Huckabee were no better.

Where's Fred?

Note below that now, over six years since 9/11, we're only "preparing" to wage the ideological war against Islam.

On treason in D.C.:
Infiltration Update. Here is a travesty for which Gordon England should be held accountable.

"Coughlin sacked," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times:
Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.

He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.

Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism.

The officials said Mr. Coughlin was let go because he had become "too hot" or controversial within the Pentagon.

Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive "outreach" program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Coughlin wrote a memorandum several months ago based on documents made public in a federal trial in Dallas that revealed a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian-origin Islamist extremist group, to subvert the United States using front groups. Members of one of the identified front groups, the Islamic Society of North America, has been hosted by Mr. England at the Pentagon.

After word of the confrontation between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Islam was made public, support for Mr. Coughlin skyrocketed among those in and out of government who feared the worst, namely that pro-Muslim officials in the Pentagon were after Mr. Coughlin's scalp, and that his departure would be a major setback for the Pentagon's struggling efforts to develop a war of ideas against extremism. Blogs lit up with hundreds of postings, some suggesting that Mr. England's office is "penetrated" by the enemy in the war on terrorism....
LTC Joseph C. Myers on this firing:
MAJ (USAR) Stephen Coughlin is to my knowledge the only Islamic Law scholar on the Joint Staff...

He is a lawyer by training and a reserve Military Intelligence Officer. His first interface with Islamic Law began in Pakistan where he was investigating and prosecuting an intellectual property rights case about 10 years ago. Reviewing Pakistani property rights law, he kept seeing footnoted references to the Quran and sharia law...

I have long argued and wondered why our military from senior leaders down to tactical level are so unread and unstudied on Islam, jihad in Islam, even the topic of terrorism. I have often contrasted this unconscionable wartime state of affairs, with the due diligence the US military showed since I was a cadet at West Point 30 years ago, where we lived, ate, slept and drank Soviet warfighting was the threat we oriented on and we developed our own doctrine around -- "AirLand Battle" in the early 1980's.

Can anyone show me where the equivalent of the Soviet threat doctrine series for the global war on terror is published?

It has not been done.

Yet today we are in the process of prosecuting war, that from doctrinal perspective, we fundamentally do not understand. Over two years I have had 90 of the Army's top majors come through ACSC, across all branches including MI and special operations forces, and only one had read a book with the title Understanding Terror Networks, that by Marc Sageman...

Just before Christmas I presented a lecture on Understanding Terrorist and Insurgent Support Systems to an interagency audience at the Joint Special Operations University, that included Joint Staff and Joint Command officers, DIA and other IC reps, DHS and law enforcement... there, two people had read Sageman's work...two out of the special ops community. The third individual was Sageman himself.

More importantly we have not studied Islamic Law and few have seen or heard of even the English translation of it that has been in print for years, none had at JSOU or had read a work titled Understanding Jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam or even The Quranic Concept of War...I can go on but let me be frank.

This failure of intellectual preparation is a leadership failure, and it is as the 9-11 Commission warned, a failure of vision.

We have spent much intellectual capitol revamping and analyzing our own doctrine as it relates to's time we do our homework on the threat.

Coughlin has briefed senior Marine Corps leaders and staff and has presented his thesis in various military educational all accounts the veil of ignorance is lifted for all but only a few who are afraid to face what Islamic Law, doctrinal Islam, says and means with respect to jihad and how it plays out across the Islamic world from al Qaida, to the Saudi government, to Pakistan to the Muslim Brotherhood...

What Coughlin did was provide the epiphany in his over 300-page Joint Military Intelligence College thesis titled, "To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad" that is meticulously documented and powerfully argued.

In short, he argues we have in fact intellectually pre-empted our military decision making process and intelligence preparation of the battlefield process, the critical step 3-"evaluate the threat." Strategically we have failed to do that by substituting policy for military analysis, for substituting cliché for competent decision processes.

We began on September 12, 2001 with "Islam is a religion of peace," which soothed ideological sentiments of many but has failed us strategically, short-stopped the objective, sytstemic evaluation of the threat doctrine.

"Islam is a religion of peace" is fine for public policy statements, but is not and cannot be the point of departure for competent military or intelligence is in fact a logical flaw under any professional research have stated the conclusion before you have done the analysis.

If one has studied the implication of the Holy Land Foundation trial discovery documents as I have, as a former DIA senior military analyst, and understanding as even Bill Gertz has written in his book Enemies about the dismal record of our counter-intelligence one has to wonder and question the extent we are in fact penetrated in government and academia by foreign agents of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamists and those who truly in essence do not share our social compact.

The termination of Stephen Coughlin on the Joint Staff is an act of intellectual cowardice.

We can only hope he can be positioned in his next venue to continue to educate our military for the fight we are in -- if we don't understand the war and the enemy we are engaged against we remain vulnerable and we cannot win.

No victory in the war on terror.
And on treasonous dhimmitude by the British government:
. . . the government and the Islamic Kingdom are trying to silence me . . . Ask yourself why?

A murderous section of the Pakistani Moslem community of Bury Park – Luton threatened my life, as witnessed by two witnesses, and my blog which is my perception of truth based on facts is my response to those very serious credible death threats.

I would rather die a Christian man than a pathetic Dhimmi – What about you?

They have bombed my homeland and they are desecrating my Nation on a daily basis with their Islamic degradation, so I will not back down from them or their gullible Liberal Left Wing tools who are trying to silence me – They are the ones who are at war with my country, and who want to kill me personally – If they want a war based on the facts and they want to kill me, then is it not my right to protect myself? If I don’t who will, do I just let these people kill me or do I run away and leave this to someone else to deal with? And if they are at war with us which they are, as the facts clearly prove, then can we the British people not let them have a war?

Whose homeland is this, theirs or mine?

What is the result of doing nothing?

My Grandfather never fought for Queen and Country so that the blessed birthright he handed to me which was my part of the British homeland as an Englishman could be taken away in my generation and given to an alien Kingdom with its alien Islamic culture so that there will be nothing left for my children other than an Islamic way of life enforced upon them.

I would rather my children know I died a free man for them and their birthright, than a coward and a slave to the oppressors, no matter what form that oppression comes in.

Why should I be forced out of my home, forced out of my business, forced into bankruptcy and forced to become a vagabond in my own land because of murdering warmongering Moslems who are at war with the Nation – something wrong there don’t you think?

And now people are trying to ‘silence’ me from speaking out about this abomination that is happening to me and my fellow countrymen by this internal enemy whose ultimate intention it is to take over rule of the land and enforce ‘Sharia Law’ upon the population, no matter how long that takes them.

. . .

You want a fight with me to silence me then lets fight, but remember there is an army made up of millions of people the same as me throughout the World who are ready to fight you with me, this has been shown to me over the last two days, and these citizens of the free world stand shoulder to shoulder with me, because this attack on me is an attack on them, their children and grandchildren also!!!

You have started something that will never be stopped now!!!

We have had enough of the murderous Islamic threat against our daily lives, and our futures, and we have had enough of our traitorous leaders and their supporters who are bending over backwards to appease the Islamic Kingdom at the expense of us and our children.

Ken Livingstone the slimy devil driven racist is the worst of them all!

The time has now come to let people know the truth so that they can decide where they stand in the coming days – I am not calling for people to march in the streets murdering people, we are civilized people we do not need to, we carry the ‘sword of truth’, that is enough at this moment in time, it is time innocent people woke up to this imminent Islamic threat that surrounds them and their children before it is too late.

Just remember we outnumber Moslems in our Country 20 to 1, we never asked for this, but we sure will rise to the challenge of the 21st Century and repel this foreign Islamic invader that has invaded our shores and is now conducting a Holy War against us.
Hasham Islam and Ken Livingstone are their own governments' Grima Wormtongues.