Monday, December 31, 2007

Primacy For Anti-Discrimination Is A Major Threat To National Security

Look at this quote from the article below:"... doing so would involv[e] analysis of Muslim religious tenets, a politically taboo subject area." The 'taboo' being referred to is the idea of running society on an anti-discrimination basis, extending the supposed right to be free of discrimination, even to foreign hostiles in wartime!

If an attitude cripples your military intelligence when you have two wars going on, how is it that such intelligent high-level officials, cannot seem even to register the reductio ad absurdum of what they are grinding down to? Are the powerful now selected, educated and promoted systematically for inability to see when anti-discrimination has been reduced to an absurdity even in important national security decisions? If so, enemies will exploit this mercilessly, and break American international power as easily as the Portuguese empire was smashed in the 1970's.
From Jihad Watch December 28, 2007 :

"Pro-Muslim Pentagon officials pressuring one of the U.S. military's most important specialists on jihad

Infiltration. "Muslim pressure," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times (scroll down):

Pro-Muslim officials at the Pentagon are putting political pressure on one of the U.S. military's most important specialists on Islamist extremism, according to defense officials.
Stephen Coughlin, a specialist on Islamic law on the Joint Staff, met recently with Hasham Islam, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England's close aide. The officials said Mr. Islam, a Muslim who is leading efforts for the Defense Department's outreach to Muslim groups, sought to convince Mr. Coughlin to take a softer line on Islam and Islamic law elements that promote extremism.
There is also evidence that a whispering campaign is under way to try and discredit Mr. Coughlin as a "Christian extremist with a pen" and force him out of the building, according to the officials.
Mr. Coughlin came under fire from pro-Muslim officials after a memorandum he wrote identified several groups that are being courted by Mr. Islam's community outreach program as front organizations for the pro-extremist Muslim Brotherhood.
Mr. Coughlin based the memorandum on documents released as evidence in a federal terrorism trial that he stated "are beginning to define the structure and outline of domestic jihad threat entities, associated nongovernmental organizations and potential terrorist or insurgent support systems."
Mr. Coughlin noted that the documents identified one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups as the Islamic Society of North America, whose leaders were hosted by Mr. England in April at the Pentagon, raising concerns that the deputy defense secretary does not understand clearly the nature of the Islamist threat he is working against as the No. 2 official.
Mr. England has been a leading advocate of what critics in the Pentagon say is a misguided attempt to reach out to the wrong Muslims, regardless of their views, in an effort to counter Muslim extremism.
That approach has kept military and civilian officials from conducting much-needed assessments of how Muslim extremists are waging war because doing so would involving analysis of Muslim religious tenets, a politically taboo subject area."
JB comments: Does reading this give you confidence that our government people are on top of domestic terrorist activities, and that openness to diversity of Islamic immigrants is safe and wholesome in the least?
Can we reasonably have porous borders with officials emphasizing religious anti-discrimination this far above national security? Would Israel allow such activities and attitudes among their top officers? At the same time, these people can't possibly be so naive, as to assume that there are no enemies, and that if we just say all men are brothers, the 'brothers' will reciprocatingly regard us the same way, and if we don't discriminate, that enemies will not exploit this as weakness? Since they can't literally believe such folderol, the implication would be that they need major terrorism to increase here for some reason, or they may be caught in some rhetorical trap, where dangerous actions or tolerances are continued beyond the grave danger point.
In an earlier post I said: The More that Government Insists that We Owe Individual Judgement to Minorities, The Worse Inter-Group Relations Become
Does this effect occur by emboldening the minorities to ask for more, or by encouraging them to blame others, or in some other ways?

No comments: