Holder: Islamic Jihadists are now above suspicion

Spread the love

Loading

Timothy Furnish:

From 2008 to 2011, I was a guest lecturer at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (the primary DHS training facility, located in coastal Georgia) and at Joint Special Operations University (which brings foreign officers to learn of U.S. irregular warfare, located in Tampa). At both venues I was asked to lecture on the history of terrorism.

I did so in an even-handed and comprehensive manner, exploring the issue across place (Europe to East Asia), time (ancient Assyria to al-Qaeda), and ideology (religious: pagan, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Muslim; and political: right-wing, left-wing, anarchist, environmentalist, etc.). Only 14 of the 44 PowerPoint screens in my presentation dealt with Islamic terrorism, although several of those actually mitigated against the concept.

Nonetheless, in June 2009 I was told that I could no longer lecture at FLETC, because the edict had come down from the new Obama administration that “no trainer who uses the term ‘jihad’ shall henceforth be used.” (This was over two years before the Obama administration was openly hostile to realistic training about Islam.)

JSOU continued to utilize me until late 2011, when I was told by the course instructor that Muslim student officers had complained that “I talked too much about Islamic terrorism.”

I was actually surprised that I had not been yanked the year before, when references to Islam and jihad were stricken from Obama’s kinder, gentler National Security Strategy document. That same year, noted Islamic studies expert Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee that foiled Islamic suicide bombers in the U.S. were motivated by “Islam that is not consistent with” that religion’s “true teachings.”

The rest is at PJ Media

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

That same year, noted Islamic studies expert Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee that foiled Islamic suicide bombers in the U.S. were motivated by “Islam that is not consistent with” that religion’s “true teachings.”

That is not only flawed logic, but absolutely ludicrous. Why would it’s ‘inconsistency with the (Islamic) religion’s “true teachings” ‘ have any bearing whatsoever on the fact that: radical fanatical Islamists use the term “Jihad” as justification for their terrorist attacks?

That is like Christian students complaining that a class teaching the historic terrorism of the Spanish Inquisition is offensive, because it might( absurdly) be construed by someone to be “comparable” to a Christian praying for forgiveness and absolution of their sin.

Another point, when someone does something egregious in the name of Christianity, Christians have no problem coming out and proving – from their Holy Books – why he was wrong to do what he did and therefore not a good Christian.
When a Muslim joins a jihad and kills people no Muslims show from their books why he should not have done so.
They can’t because their own books order them to either support jihad financially or commit their bodies to jihad.