We read:
"Leaked documents have revealed the FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that "main stream" Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathisers.
Documents given to Wired magazine’s “Danger Room” by an FBI whistleblower show agents are instructed that the Islamic practice of giving charity is a “funding mechanism for combat”, the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader, and include a graph showing the more “devout” a Muslim is the more likely he is to engage in acts of violence.
One presentation explains that these tendencies towards violence: “may not be a 'radical' threat as much as it is simply a normal assertion of the orthodox ideology. “The strategic themes animating these Islamic values are not fringe; they are main stream.”
The material claims that "any war against non-believers is justified” under Muslim law.
The revelations have been slammed by former FBI members as both discriminatory and ineffective.
Recently retired US Navy “al-Qaida-hunter” Robert McFadden told Wired that “teaching counter-terrorism operatives about obscure aspects of Islam without context, without objectivity, and without covering other non-religious drivers of dangerous behavior is no way to stop actual terrorists.”
Source
9 comments:
It appears that the FBI training was simply trying to show the near universal truth that fundamentalists of any stripe are more easily swayed to violence against non-believers. This also holds for white supremacists, radical Christians and Jews, and the radical left (including the Eco fringe, GALBC, etc.)
MDH
radical Christians
Really? So what happens when Christians get radical about obeying the two central commands of Christianity?
Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
— Matthew 22:37–40
It really makes me wonder how anyone can look at those commands and see someone serious about obeying them as being violent and scary.
If you want to know what the ultimate example of any religion looks like, examine the life of its founder. Mohammad started off peacefully, but spent the latter part of his life murdering and pillaging his way across the Middle East. Jesus went around healing people and teaching, then gave up his life willingly to die on our behalf.
Given those examples, what does an extreme follower of each of those founders look like? Which founder does Mohammad Atta's actions match? Which one does Mother Theresa's actions match? Would it even be possible to attribute their actions to the other founder?
Anon MDH,
Nice try at moral relativism, tho awfully awkwardly introduced; shoehorned, really, into a conversation where it doesn't quite fit except by force.
Nice how it places you at the top of the heap, too, but I'm sure that's coincidental and has nothing to do with your ego.
It's fascinating how the "whistleblower" "exposed" the fact that the FBI is teaching its agents things which are known to be true. My response?
Good for them! PC objections should have no place in identifying the truth and teaching it to their agents.
If the FBI abandons that approach then they risk becoming another state agency enforcing the whims of political leaders and opposing reality, much like the KGB, Stasi, and Gestapo did.
Why in the world should "moderate, mainstream muslims" not be considered terrorist threats. After all Janet Neopolitan [sic]had declared moderate mainstream gun-loving, bible-clinging tea-baggers to be terrorists threats and put them on a watch-list, along with disgruntled veterans, as I remember. (Actually, I think nowadays everybody but registered Democrats are under suspicion and should be watched closely!)
Many people who identify with a group as whole-heartedly and emotionally as a religious group, whether islamic or christian, will tend to overlook or excuse the extremist views amongst their number, out of a sense of loyalty to the "group".
Or just as Luke does, use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, relying on his own very narrow view of a "true" Christian, regardless of all its manifold varieties, all claiming to have a handle on the so-called TRUTH!
Isn't it amazing how some people will distort anything and everything to try to support their prejudice? Even the definition of logical fallacies?
Let's test Anon's application of the No True Scotsman fallacy:
If someone kills someone because they're driving drunk, is that the fault of MADD? Or is MADD responsible anyway because every single argument to the contrary is a No True Scotsman fallacy? What if there was a MADD bumper sticker on the car?
Or put it another way: If a football coach calls a pass play, but the team runs a run play resulting in a major loss of yards, is that loss of yardage the coaches' fault?
No! Obviously no! Or is that the No True Scotsman fallacy? C'mon, get real!
How can someone claim that Christianity is responsible when someone does the exact opposite of what Christianity teaches? It's patently absurd!
The Bible says "You shall not murder." (In just so many words. Exodus 20:13 & Deuteronomy 5:17) So when someone who claims to be a Christian commits murder, did the Bible command them to do it? Of course not! To claim otherwise is thoroughly irrational.
If it's not Christianity or the Bible that instructs people to kill, then it must be God, through the Church/Pope.
-L
When self-proclaimed Christians do or say what they believe and Luke disagrees, he is making the "No True Scotsman" claim, as in "No true Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge" = No true Christian would do what Luke disagrees with or claims isn't Christian in every example.
Post a Comment