Tag Archives: Islam

ARMY ACKNOWLEDGES PEDOPHILIA PART OF ISLAM

muslim infestation emergency bacon kit

A new Army manual that warns American soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid talking about certain topics has unwittingly acknowledged that Western taboos such as pedophilia are an inherent part of Islamic culture.

“By mentioning that pedophilia and women’s rights and saying that soldiers should not mention such things they are tacitly admitting that those things are indeed part of Islam,” said Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a new 75-page Army manual suggests U.S. soldiers are to blame for the large number of deadly attacks on them by Afghan security forces. The manual reportedly says the soldiers may have brought the attacks on themselves because of insensitivity towards Islamic culture.

“Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force] member,” the draft report prepared by Army researchers and obtained by the Journal said.

Clare Lopez, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy, said the suggestion that U.S. soldiers are to blame for the attacks on them by Afghan security forces is outrageous.

“To suggest that our troops are somehow being murdered because of our insensitivity to their culture is essentially saying it’s our own fault that the troops are being killed because we weren’t nice enough to them,” Lopez said. “The fundamental refusal to acknowledge that the enemy fights because of what he says he fight for, which is Islam, is a failure by our professional leadership from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on down. Because of this, we have no strategy.”

This year alone, more than three dozen attacks have killed 63 coalition forces. In an attempt to quell the attacks the Army report has issued a list of “taboo conversational topics.”

The topics include “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights” and “directing any criticism towards Afghans” or “anything related to Islam.”

WND contacted the Army to request a copy of the manual. Army spokesman Ray Harp responded by saying it would not release a copy, for security reasons. He explained the Army wished to avoid detailing specific tactics, techniques and procedures outlined in the handbook.

Regarding the WSJ copy, Harp said whoever released it was not authorized to do so.

“While the handbook does contain information we do not want freely distributed into the hands of our enemies, it is labeled with the ‘For Official Use Only’ restriction,” Harp said. “While still officially unclassified, we require the information to be protected from an open distribution and it should not have been released to anyone outside of those who needed access to it for official purposes.”

Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, says while she has not seen the draft copy, she can understand how it is beneficial for the Army to help teach soldiers about cultural differences. Unfortunately, she said, Congress and military leaders often go too far.

“There is a cultural problem that the military needs to confront, but I’m not sure this manual is the best way to go about it,” Donnelly said. “If the information in it is for our soldier’s protection so as to prevent something from being provocative, it might save a life, but if as the article suggests it is calling for soldiers to be overly deferential, that’s not called for.”

Donnelly noted the example of Navy Lt. Florence Choe, who was shot by an Afghan guard in 2009 for wearing shorts while jogging along the perimeter of the base.

“I’m not saying this was her fault, but if her commanders had taken the time to acknowledge that individuals in that part of the world have a different attitude in regards to women in shorts, it might have saved her life,” she said.

However, Donnelly says there are other taboos supposedly in the report that appear to have gone too far.

The Army manual also advises soldiers to avoid “any criticism of pedophilia” or “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct.”

“In that part of the world homosexuality is condemned, and pedophilia is accepted. It’s not like our culture at all and that needs to be acknowledged. We don’t have to be subservient to be cautious,” she continued. “Unfortunately, often times our leaders want to go overboard, believing it will help our relationships with these countries, but the truth is it doesn’t.”

The Army manual has drawn sharp criticism from Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan. Allen reportedly has rejected a proposed foreword written by the Army using his name.

“Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a foreword,” Col. Tom Collins, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan said. “He does not approve of its contents.”

Spencer says the ban on criticizing pedophilia has put the military in a difficult position. By attempting to show cultural sensitivity, it is forced to acknowledge that pedophilia is an inherent part of Islamic teaching.

“This draws attention to the fact that despite denials by the U.S. government and groups like CAIR, these things are a part of official Islam,” Spencer said. “However, I don’t expect them to have the honesty to acknowledge the inconsistency.”

He said that by telling soldiers not to speak against pedophilia, the military and the U.S. government is essentially endorsing the behavior.

“We are essentially sending the message that the United States endorses pedophilia by refusing to speak out against it. I don’t see any way around this.”

Clare Lopez, also a senior fellow with the Clarion Fund, said the new manual is another example of how the military is sending the message that Western culture and values are subservient to Islam.

“It’s another step in a process of submission to the appeasement of Islam that the United States leadership including military leadership has been pursuing for quite a while,” she said. “The entire program seems to be geared to appeasing the Taliban and jihadists by giving in to their world view which says Islam should not be offended and letting them decide what is offensive.”

She said the problem is not limited to the Obama administration but began in Afghanistan under President George W. Bush.

“This actually began in 2004 when we helped Afghanistan enshrine Islamic Shariah law in the constitution. Once we did that, we no longer had any purpose being in the country because we gave the enemy everything they asked for,” she noted. “That’s what they fight for, the imposition of Shariah. All of these other measures that followed from that point on have been a further attempt to win their hearts and minds. It hasn’t worked as is evident by the fact they are still killing our soldiers.”

The Army manual is in keeping with policies by the Obama administration to deliberately scrub all training materials that criticize Islam. Earlier this year, the FBI destroyed all of its materials that taught there was an Islamic connection to terrorism.

WND previously reported the Pentagon refused to give assurances that soldiers who burned the Quran would not be turned over to Afghan authorities to face trial.

Cmdr. William Speakes, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said: “It would be premature to speculate at any potential outcomes. Any disciplinary action if deemed warranted will be taken by U.S. authorities after a thorough review of the facts pursuant to all U.S. military law and regulations and in accordance with due process. We have made no commitments beyond that.”

When asked if that meant the only commitment officials were willing to make was that the soldiers would not be tried in an Afghan court, Speakes said: “No. The only commitment we have made is that we will take any appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary by the investigation. Any suggestions that we have made more detailed commitments beyond what I just told you is inaccurate.”

Spencer said the Army manual sends the message to Middle Easterners that despite statements by our government, they cannot expect any help from America when it comes to fighting for basic human rights.

“Anybody in these Muslim countries that wanted to see freedom of speech, a crackdown on pedophilia, or rights for women were disappointed at the time that we endorsed the Afghan constitution which enshrined these principles in Islamic law,” Spencer said. “It sends the message to advocates of human rights and freedom that the United States is not going to help them and they are on their own.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/army-acknowledges-pedophilia-part-of-islam/#9d9RQsFQ4lxTCgee.99

Facebooktwitterrss

Answers to Objections When You Talk About Islam Part 10 | Are you a hate-monger?

Terror "Drills" Gone Live

BELOW IS A LIST of responses you are likely to get when talking about the terrifying brilliance of Islam to someone who knows little about it. The responses link to an article giving you suggestions about how to effectively respond.

The good news is that the responses you will typically get are a fairly small number. You’ll hear the same few objections over and over (1-7 are the most common). When you have some good answers to these objections ready at hand, you will be able to answer smoothly and with poise, without feeling tense or antagonistic.

When you talk about Islamic supremacism with people, they are likely to say one of the following:

10. Are you a hate-monger ? 

hatemongerI don’t believe in promoting hatred.

you may very well be accused of being a “hater,” as if telling people about basic Islamic doctrines means you advocate hatred toward Muslims as the solution. And nobody likes a hater, or wants to be one.

This objection is fairly easy to answer. Here are three possible ways to respond:

1. Hatred is not the answer. If anything, I am anti-hatred. That’s why I am trying to expose Islamic teachings: Shari’a law includes a system of legally-mandated hatred. Mohammad is their model, and he expressed hatred toward non-Muslims. He maligned them, robbed them, tortured them, killed them, raped them, and took them as slaves. Muslims are supposed to follow his example. It says so in the Qur’an 91 times.

2. I’m talking about the teachings, not the people. Some Muslims follow the teachings, and some are Muslim in name only. But non-Muslims need to know about the teachings, because many of the most fundamental Islamic teachings are about how to deal with non-Muslims. According to the teachings, we must be subjugated under Islamic law. All of us. Voluntarily or by force. And the tens of millions or hundreds of millions who follow Islamic doctrine to the letter are actively working toward that end. They have gained control over how Islam is taught in American schoolbooks. Devoted followers have set up organizations in the United States and other Western democracies with the express purpose of undermining those democracies from within. We need to know about this stuff. It is affecting us already.

3. If I say the teachings of communism advocate ending economic inequalities, does that make me a hatemonger? If I say Republicans advocate smaller government, does that make me ahater? If I say Buddhists believe in reincarnation, does that make me a hater? But if I say the teachings of Islam advocate striving to institute worldwide Shari’a law, that makes me a hatemonger? That doesn’t make any sense. Where did you come up with that?

When you answer these questions, think of the question itself as an earnest request for knowledge, even if the question comes out as an accusation. People don’t really know how to understand what you’re doing, so they use the only model they can think of to interpret your actions: They think you must be like a racist or a religious bigot or something along those lines.

So a helpful response is to give them a better model to interpret with. What you’re doing is much closer to education than hatemongering. Urge them to read the Qur’an for themselves to find out more about it.

http://nocompulsion.com/answers-to-objections-when-you-talk-about-islam/

Facebooktwitterrss

Answers to Objections When You Talk About Islam Part 9 | Isn’t this bigotry?

BELOW IS A LIST of responses you are likely to get when talking about the terrifying brilliance of Islam to someone who knows little about it. The responses link to an article giving you suggestions about how to effectively respond.

The good news is that the responses you will typically get are a fairly small number. You’ll hear the same few objections over and over (1-7 are the most common). When you have some good answers to these objections ready at hand, you will be able to answer smoothly and with poise, without feeling tense or antagonistic.

When you talk about Islamic supremacism with people, they are likely to say one of the following:

9. Isn’t this bigotry?

bigotsWhen you say anything negative about Islamic doctrine, one of the responses you’ll typically get is an implication that you are a bigot. If you ever hear this, your first response should be to define “bigot.” Most people don’t really know what it means. They only know it is a bad thing and has something to do with racism.

A bigot is “strongly partial to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

So someone who is a Christian, for example, and is intolerant of anyone who is not a Christian, is a bigot. Or anyone who is Chinese and intolerant of anyone who is not Chinese, is a bigot. If the group to which you are partial is your race, then bigotry is the same as racism. If that’s what you’re accused of and you are not a racist, we’ve got some good responses to the racism accusation here. If you are accused of religious bigotry and it’s not true, we have some good responses to the “religious intolerance” accusation here.

There are definitely people trying to stop Islam’s relentless encroachment who are motivated by bigotry. But criticism of Islamic doctrine is not bigotry.

You can answer the bigotry objection very simply. First, define it. And then say, “I am partial to groups who want to support the continued existence of the United States (or the UK, or wherever you are). So I guess in that sense, I am a bigot — I am partial to a group and intolerant of subversives. I don’t want our government overthrown or subverted by someone who wants to follow Shari’a law. I am against any movement trying to take away women’s rights, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, which is what Islamic supremacists are doing.”

And maybe you can add something like this: “But if that can be defined as a bigot, I hope you are that kind of bigot, too. Are you?”

The real objection of someone who fears you are a bigot is that you are against everyone if they are not of your religion, your race, or your political persuasion. And that you might be intolerant of such people simply because of those things.

Is it true? Do you believe that your way is the only right way? Are you intolerant of anyone not like you?

Do you believe others have a right to worship as they wish? Do you believe people of other races have the same human rights as yours?

If you are a Republican and you have Democrat friends, if you are a Jew and have a Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian friend, if you are Anglo-Saxon but have a Mexican friend, you are not a bigot. And if your accuser says so, you can point out these things and then get back to the real issue: The doctrine of Islam, our right to criticize it, and the danger it presents to the free world.

http://nocompulsion.com/answers-to-objections-when-you-talk-about-islam/

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!