Always in search of books or articles that may best clarify subjects that seem obscure or cluttering to my limited intelligence, I ran into this article at my local book-store, which I immediately felt compelled to share with my fellow BM members for several reasons.

Mainly, it clearly exposes (for the first time to my eyes, anyway) the real face of Islam, or its presents leaders, should I say. Also, it reveals how these Militant Islamic Fundamentalists secretly envision the future. A very calculated and thought-out future, where tolerance for the infidel will be non-existent. A dark and ominous future should the monstrous leaders of the present Islam movement over-taking the west have it their way.

Sure, there are all those billions of well-intended mosque-goers and moderate Muslims who with their big smiles and humble ways reassure us of their good neighboring intentions. But, does anybody hold their leaders accountable for their actions at all whatsoever? And who are their leaders anyway? If you’ve never heard the name Abdurahman Alamoudi don’t be surprised. That’s because, far from being a far more dangerous character that Usama Bin Laden himself, this man spends nights as guest of honor at the White House itself! Who in his right mind would think of a good-will ambassador such as Abdurahman Alamoudi as a major threat to the security of the USA, right? He can easily bring-in a plutonium-loaded suitcase into the white house and pass it unchecked (worst-case scenario) and no-one would take notice, right? Or am I being too paranoid here?

My own feeling is, the world according to radical Islam should be what it was according to Christianity during the dark ages: The masses in total control by a few elite. There’s no doubt in my mind that present leaders of Islam have a secret agenda for the west and for Israel. And they are taking the full advantages given to them by the very western social systems whose basic laws rest on the freedom of the individual to do and say as he/she pleases. We’re bound to be victims of our own civic progress and social advance; as we fall victims to the evil side of the blind and gullible religious buffoons who can’t think for themselves.

And the scariest part is that, according to the article, those who can do something about it are turning a blind eye on the issue. Here is the article, although not in full, as it was printed in the November Issue:






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IACSP JCT Interviews
A Special Interview With Steve Emerson

Steve Emerson

Submitted to: Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International
Vol. 12, No. 3 2006



JCT Interviews Steve Emerson
June, 2006

JCT: You have been doing terrorism investigative research for 12 years now. What drives you to work the hours you do?

Emerson: Look, I'll be honest with you--I would rather not be eating dinner at midnight over my keyboard. But when I think about other things that I could be doing, and for a lot more money, there is nothing that compares with the satisfaction that this job brings. Yes, there is also the instinctive thrill of the chase-for example, uncovering hidden terrorist assets and secret terrorist connections-- that still energizes me from the days that I used to be an investigative reporter.

I have met dozens of families who have lost their children in terrorist attacks for whom life will always be a function of grieving. They need a voice and, for them, I can play some small role. I am grateful for the opportunity.

I also draw inspiration from the incredible dedication of government officials who don't get public recognition for their hard work. FBI agents, Justice Department prosecutors, local police, and Treasury analysts are some of the faceless members of the government who understand what this war is all about.

JCT: And what would you say this war is all about?

Emerson: Well, it is not just a war on terrorism. That's like saying World War II was a war against submarines. There is a particular enemy who seeks to kill Americans and westerners and impose its theological totalitarianism on countries with Muslim populations. That enemy is militant Islamic fundamentalism. It is rooted in theological doctrine-and the West makes a big mistake claiming that radicals have "hijacked" a religion or that they have perverted the meaning of "jihad." While genuine moderates certainly exist, and while jihad can mean spiritual struggle to some, the stark reality is that jihadists have been in control of Muslim hierarchies and religious institutions throughout the Muslim world, and for that matter, many Muslim institutions in the West.

When we sanitize the concept of jihad, or when we simply call the war we are fighting a "war on terrorism" instead of calling it a war on Islamic extremism, we are only playing into the hands of the savvy Islamic fundamentalist apologists by essentially rendering the attacks by radical Islam to be devoid of a motive. There is clearly a religious motive behind the suicide bombings in Israel, the bombings on the London and Madrid transport systems and Bali clubs, and the attacks of 9-11. That motive is the belief by some that their version of Islam can be imposed or that they are entitled to attack their "enemies" who block their imposition of Islam. It is that totalitarianism that empowers Islamic terrorists to carry out their attacks.

JCT: So is it a war against Islamic terrorism or a war against radical Islam?

Emerson: It is both. We need to be fighting those would kill us, but we also need to be fighting the parental ideology and leadership that sanction these attacks. Islamic terrorists are subsumed under the larger body of radical Islamic religious and political leaders, who not only provide the justification for attacks, but who also provide the religious rationale for rules that subjugate women to second class status, for honor crimes in which young women are executed by their brothers and fathers, for the rights of husbands to beat their wives, and for throwing acid in the faces of secularized Muslim women if they do not cover-i.e., wear a hijab-as has happened in Gaza and Algeria. Additionally, Christians in the Muslim world are routinely persecuted.

Frankly, focusing on the Islamic terrorists who are targeting us is the easiest part of explaining what the war is about. No, not easy in terms of actual fighting, but it is easy in terms of understanding who the enemy is. It is more difficult to understand that we are fighting the larger force of Islamic fundamentalism, of which Islamic terrorism is but one tool. Aside from the treatment of women, there is the unremitting virulent hatred expressed towards Christians, Jews and Hindus in many Islamic text books, in many mosque sermons, on the airwaves, and on the internet - to "educate" both children and adults. And perhaps most difficult to understand in an open pluralist society are the related assiduous efforts made by Islamic fundamentalists in the West who insinuate themselves into positions of authority, intimidate us into accepting their version of reality and who advance an unspoken agenda that has totalitarian goals - all to acquire political influence.

These actions are exactly from the playbook of the Muslim Brotherhood. We in the West are supremely naïve in accepting their sincerity.

JCT: What is their agenda?

Emerson: Ultimately, it's about conquering the West and imposing their interpretation of Islam. Oh, I am not worried that the US is going to become part of a Caliphate. But I am worried that we are being intimidated, by either implicit threats of violence or by false charges of racism, into compromising our beliefs and values. Nowhere was this more evident than in the confrontation over the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. The West gave in to the fear of violent bullying and thereby engaged in self-censorship. Muslim groups phrased the argument in terms of religious disrespect for Islam: in other words, they wanted to suppress publication of material they considered blasphemous. And we obliged them.

Aside from the sheer hypocrisy shown by many in the Muslim world with their unremitting daily demonstrations of hatred toward other religions in their media and culture, since when did "blasphemy" become part of American jurisprudence? With only a few notable exceptions, many of the beacons of freedom of thought, who pride themselves in the freedom of the press' right to disclose national security secrets, acquiesced to the demands of the Muslim world.

The editors at the Washington Post and New York Times performed rhetorical acrobatics in trying to explain why they would not publish the cartoons. And yet it came down to pure raw intimidation. Journalists, too, have to suffer the false branding of somehow being 'anti-Islam' when legitimately reporting on Islamist extremism. Ironically, it is the extremists who are making that connection! When you add the deception perpetrated nearly every day by radical Islamic groups falsely pretending to be victimized, often with the witting and unwitting connivance of some members of the media and government, you start to see another facet of this war-and it is this facet that we are losing.

JCT: Can you give examples of deception?

Emerson: I think the American public would be absolutely shocked to see how some within the FBI, DHS, State Department, the Bureau of Prisons and numerous other governmental agencies have kowtowed to officials of radical Islamist groups who purport to be moderate. Many of the leaders of these groups claim to speak on behalf of most Muslim Americans, while they attempt to close down other voices within the Muslim community.

The "dialoguing" that goes on - with group leaders who demand to be the only representatives of the Muslim community with whom the government should meet -- has real consequences: There is in fact a cost to our long term security --because ultimately, the answer to the threat of militant Islam is to encourage an Islamic reformation. That means empowering genuine moderates, not the ones who ostentatiously issue "fatwas," (with no content), against terrorism as was done last summer, yet attack every prosecution of Islamic terrorists as part of a sinister war against Islam. How can one be against terrorism yet champion Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Lashkar-e-Taibah and others? Rather than call these groups on their hypocrisy, some within the FBI and State Department-and I don't mean all members of those institutions-have often legitimized, and sometimes even given grants to groups such as CAIR, MPAC and ISNA-all of whom are ideological derivatives of the Muslim Brotherhood - to provide "sensitivity training" to government agents.

The agencies even have used these groups' conferences as sites for recruiting new agents. This legitimization goes far beyond our own borders. Does the State Department's Karen Hughes honestly believe that promoting the leaders and members of ISNA and the Muslim Student Association as the poster models of American Muslims will make the Muslim world respect us, or cause these groups to stop championing Islamic terrorist movements or cease portraying the war on terrorism as a war against Islam?

The State Department has continued to give visas to radical Islamic extremists to visit this country. And under the banner of outreach, State has arranged for officials of radical Islamic groups to represent the US abroad. Moreover, US embassies abroad have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe millions of hard-earned tax payer money, on conferences in which radical Islamic groups and leaders from the US have been feted abroad. In one case we just discovered, the Embassy in Pakistan gave a grant of $22,000 to Islamic fundamentalist groups to produce a 10 part CD series that promotes wearing of the hijab and spawns conspiracy theories about the "war against Islam."

JCT: Who is watching over these practices?

Emerson: That's the problem. No one is. If federal agencies are prepared to spend millions of dollars on outreach program that empowers front groups to the exclusion of actual moderates, who is going to stop this? Fortunately, one FBI program was nixed at the last moment, but these shenanigans go on routinely throughout the government at the federal, state and local level. The height of this deception occurred with American Muslim leader Abdurahman Alamoudi, who in the 1990's was invited routinely to the White House, sent abroad by the State Department, lauded at the CIA, and feted at the FBI. He pretended to be moderate, a pretension accepted at face value by nearly every wing of the US government.

Alamoudi succeeded in insinuating himself into the highest reaches of the US government-just look at the numerous pictures of him with the President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore. He had been routinely portrayed as a moderate by some in the mainstream media. But it was patently clear from scrutinizing his organization-the American Muslim Council-that he was a supporter of terrorist groups; he vehemently expressed such support in a public speech in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House.

I wrote two articles in the Wall Street Journal in 1996 warning that the administration was essentially inviting Hamas to the White House. But the articles fell on deaf ears -- until 2003, when Alamoudi was arrested (at Heathrow airport with $340,000 in a briefcase). He ultimately pleaded guilty to illegal financial dealings overseas and participating in a plot to assassinate the leader of Saudi Arabia with the connivance of two Al Qaeda supporters in London...

This is a partial version of the article published in the latest Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security Int'l.
For the full article and many others like this, please use our IACSP membership form to join the IACSP.
Get one year of magazines and newsletters for the low price of $65 Click Here!


Back




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like something from the 60's now just substitute Islam where commie was before.
Code Buttons do you really believe that any leader Islam or any religion for that matter does
not have an agenda of sorts. The paranoia regarding Islam bleeds through books and media
all over the place these days, and it is nothing more that talk of Armageddon from a more often than
not Christian journalist/country.

I'm not naive enough not to believe it. I just found the article worth sharing because, in my opinion, it sort of "checks" the pulse of the times we live in with sinister accuracy.

[/quote]
I'm not naive enough not to believe it. I just found the article worth sharing because, in my opinion, it sort of "checks" the pulse of the times we live in with sinister accuracy.
[/quote]


Fair enough. As long as this belief does not lead to paranoia and prejudice then its all good.