J'Accuse! Soldier says military chaplaincy compromised by Saudi petrodollars

J'accuse...! In 1898 a Parisian literary newspaper, L’Aurore, printed what some have called the greatest newspaper article of all time. Written by Emile Zola, the 4,000-word article exposed a corrupt French military more concerned with appearance than reality. An innocent man, Alfred Dreyfus, was falsely convicted and sent to Devil’s Island. Then, it was pride, fear and anti-semitism the drove the machinations. Today, our military is undermined by Saudi petrodollars promoting a single religion, indeed, a single sect, politely known as Wahhabi Islam, but more accurately termed Islamic Fascism, that threatens our nation with physical and economic terror. Aside from the many links to al Qaeda, Saudi petrodollars fund terrorist political fronts such as CAIR, AMC, WAMY, MSU, et al who are aggressively attacking any criticism of Islam as “intolerance.” This absurd inversion of reality from hyper-intolerant Saudi Arabia is equivalent to the ironic Nazi banners warning “Germans, beware of the Jewish warmonger!” Saudi petrodollars have compromised our chaplaincy and continue to manipulate the military, yet leadership seems too oblivious or timid to extirpate the cancer, even as more Americans die in Iraq and Afghanistan. The demand implicit in the following letter is for the halt of friendly contact with all Saudi-funded organizations by the United States government, an end to Saudi student-jihadist visas, and the halt to capital investments in the United States by Saudi Arabia.

To the Department of Defense, and the Public,

“Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil” –Thomas Mann

“An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy”—Thomas Jefferson

As an Army public affairs specialist, I would like to bring to the military’s attention misinformation presented in a film used for annual suicide prevention awareness training in the Reserve. The film is representative of a deeper concern I have about misinformation in regard to Islamic terrorism. I also would like to ask about the appropriateness of a speaker at an upcoming “Islam workshop” for Army chaplains. Superficially, the film, hosted by an Army chaplain, is a typical production that almost no one would find offensive. The problem I find is the particular example of a “suicide” the film uses. The film describes one Charles Bishop as a troubled teenager that gave many signs of suicidal behavior before flying a small private plane into a building in Tampa, Florida, killing no one but himself. What is completely missing from the story is Bishop’s motivation, or, as Paul Harvey would say, “The rest of the story.” Here is Bishop’s “suicide” note:

I have prepared this statement in regards to the acts I am about to commit. First of all, Osama bin Laden is absolutely justified in the terror he has caused on 9-11. He has brought a mighty nation to its knees! God blesses him and the others who helped make September 11th happen. The U.S. will have to face the consequences for its horrific actions against the Palestinian people and Iraqis by its allegiance with the monstrous Israelis--who want nothing short of world domination! You will pay--God help you--and I will make you pay! There will be more coming! Al Qaeda and other organizations have met with me several times to discuss the option of me joining. I didn't. This is an operation done by me only. I had no other help, although, I am acting on their behalf. Osama bin Laden is planning on blowing up the Super Bowl with an antiquated nuclear bomb left over from the 1967 Israeli-Syrian war.

As you may deduce, Bishop was not simply a distraught kid with a plane at his disposal, but a young Islamic terrorist. Positioning him as a tragic case of normative suicide is absurd, when in reality he is hardly more than a younger Muhammed Atta. Bishop, or Bishara before his mother changed it, became enamored with Islamofascism, sparked by a fascination with his estranged father’s Arab ancestry. In Islam as it is widely practiced, dying in cause of jihad is not considered suicide. Stating otherwise is contrary to the beliefs of millions of Muslims who view these murderers as martyrs. Bishop was clearly practicing jihadist Islam, whether or not he was yet a member of Al Qaeda. Using Bishop in a suicide prevention film is as wrong as using Columbine suicide killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold—without mentioning the massacre. If this were an isolated example of misinformation, it would represent little and my letter would end here. Unfortunately, it isn’t. Contemporary America is choking from censorship on all things defamatory of Islam, however slight and however accurate. This is preventing real reform in Islam. I do not know if the chaplain knew the truth about Bishop. In today’s climate of political correctness, truth is often hard to come by if relying on mainstream sources. In fact, few American papers reported the facts on Bishop’s background, and Fox News even featured Muslim advocates claiming he was an example of a non-Islamic terrorist. I will address later how this type of news failure relates to the military and my Army career field in public affairs. First, another example of this ongoing hidden terrorism: Recently, there was an attempt by Muslim student Mohammed Taheri-azar to kill students at UNC at Chapel Hill using a rented car to run them down. Taheri’s explanatory note was similar to Bishop’s, yet again the media downplayed his reasons, choosing to cast him as a “loner,” rather than an Islamic terrorist. There are many more such examples of local Islamic terrorism that can be found in the “alternative” press. In addition, many plots have been quietly foiled, and many American mosques, often funded by Saudi petrodollars, are preaching visceral hatred of non-Muslims and espousing the overthrow of the United States. I will not attempt to isolate the origin of the current state of political correctness that leads to misinformation. I will only attempt to point out its presence thorough example and how it is paralyzing our effort to successfully conclude the “war on terror.” Hopefully, the adage, “The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is a problem,” applies here. Since 9/11 the official government position has been to uncritically accept that Islam has been hijacked by extremists. Furthermore, we are told that Islam is really “a religion of peace.” In other words, the government has become a spokesman for Islam, rather than a neutral party. Further proof of this uncritical position: 1. Soon after 9/11, on September 26, 2001, Muslim advocates from the American Muslim Council and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were invited to break bread at the White House. Both groups are outspoken Saudi-funded advocates for Hamas and Hezbollah—terrorist groups as deemed by the State Department. In fact, Abdurahman Alamoudi, the AMC’s long-serving executive director, is currently serving a twenty-three year sentence on a terrorism conviction. Another AMC member and a founder of Islamic Jihad, Sami al-Arian, was hosted at the White House in June 2001. He is also now in prison on terrorism charges. Possibly with the exception of White House insider and alleged crypto-Islamist Grover Norquist, it appears the White House was unaware of the visiting Muslim groups’ negative history. This, despite background checks often as easy as a Google search. Was this just a case of the left hand not talking to the right? Or was it a severe case of denial due to political correctness? 2. The head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, spoke to the AMC in 2002. His spokesman said the FBI regards the AMC as “the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States.” The AMC website, post-9/11, linked to “Know Your Rights,” a document advising “Don’t Talk to the FBI.” Mueller is apparently phobic of appearing Islamophobic, and makes it a point never to mention Islam and terrorism in the same sentence. The question is, “How can the government fight what it can’t even mention?” 3. On the immigration front, Muslim immigration continues at record levels, despite new fingerprinting and questioning rules. Virtually every Islamic country has made official pronouncements, based in the Koran, that are threatening to the United States. If our congress were less inhibited by political correctness, it would not be hard to call for a curb on further immigration from Islamic countries, at least until the “war on terror” is a distant memory. Instead, we continue feeding Islamic terror cells popping up across the country, virtually all of which are composed of immigrants. During World War II, aside from Jewish refugees, akin to today’s Christians and Zoroastrians fleeing Muslim persecution, were thousands of Germans and Japanese permitted into America? No. Another immigration alert: At Yale, former Taliban spokesman Sayed Hashemi is attending school despite his minimal education and more sinisterly, his unrepentant service for the murderous Taliban regime, including while it was fighting and killing American troops. Yale, incidentally, continues to block the ROTC from training on campus because of the military’s allegedly homophobic “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The Taliban, on the other hand, knocked stone walls over on accused homosexuals, in accordance with Islamic Sharia law. Yale says it accepted Hashemi to increase understanding. As Deroy Murdock of the National Review pointed out, would Yale have accepted German foreign minister von Ribbentrop’s top aide in 1942 to “increase understanding” of Nazism? 4. Karen Hughes, the White House ambassador writ large for improving the United States’ image in the Muslim world was asked what books on Islam she found particularly insightful. She referenced the Saudi-funded authors John Esposito and Reza Aslan without mentioning any authors critical of Islamists. Esposito is on record as a defender of terrorist Sami al-Arian, a founder of Islamic Jihad. Hughes’ State Department has endorsed several terrorist-compromised Islamic groups such as the pervasive Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas front group that has had several executive members indicted and/or sentenced on terror charges. Did Hughes pick up her Islamic education at the CAIR headquarters bookstore in DC? 5. Siraj Wahhaj, a former vice president of the Wahhabi-funded ISNA, was the first Muslim to give the opening prayer before the United States House of Representatives, in 1991. In 1995 he was named by US Attorney Mary Jo White as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. As a character witness for bombing leader Omar Rahman, Wahhaj described him as a “respected scholar,” and another convicted bomber as “one of the most respected brothers.” Siraj has kept company with terrorists for decades. Was it too hard for the intelligence officers to check the glaringly odious background of Wahhaj before he had all those congressmen bow their heads? Or were they prevented by political correctness run amok, maybe even within their own ranks?

To understand the ramifications of diluting and denying Islamic terrorism at home and abroad, I found it useful to contrast our response to events during highly-patriotic periods in American history. For instance, in 1942, when eight Nazi saboteurs were caught in the United States after being dropped off by a German U-boat, the public reaction was near universal outrage toward them. Most of the saboteurs were executed mere months after capture, sentenced by US military trial. Although their trial was in some ways constitutionally problematic, it is interesting to contrast the public’s desire for blood with public sentiment toward the alleged terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Despite every indication by experts who have actually visited “Gitmo” that the prisoners are being treated extraordinarily well, a significant and vocal number of Americans, as well as the “world community,” assume they are being tortured and held unjustly. It is likely that because the media, including military public affairs, are not giving the full story about Islamic terrorism, the public is shifting suspicion and blame onto the United States. By cultivating public ignorance via political correctness and increasing the pool of potential enemy sympathizers via blind immigration policies, the United States is in danger of mirroring the defeatist attitude of 1930’s France. A large percentage of French thought being invaded, or colonized, by Nazi Germany would be a good thing. Of course they were wrong, as most soon found out. Another comparison: In 1946, United States military intelligence issued a report straightforwardly called “Islam: A Threat to World Stability.” Had the report been taken seriously, the threat of 1946 may not be the hegemonic monster it is today. All today’s key buzzwords were mentioned in the report, from the murderous, rigid Wahhabi sect that controls Saudi Arabia, to the Muslim world’s inferiority complex and cultural stagnation, to anti-Semitism over the prosperity brought by Jews in Palestine. Of course, there was no mention of Israel, because Israel was not founded until 1948, decades after the first Arab massacres of Jewish immigrants. Such a foreshadowing of today’s events begs the question: Did anyone at State read these reports from the field?

The military’s take on Islam is equally confusing. The military created the Islamic Chaplaincy at the urging of the omnipresent then non-citizen Abdurahman Alamoudi during an AMC meeting in 1991 with the Executive Director of US Armed Forces Board of Chaplains. Yes, this Alamoudi is the same one in jail on a terror conviction. The Muslim chaplaincy was created in response to a surge in the number of Muslim military members largely converted by Saudi “outreach” programs while they were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war. The first US military Muslim chaplain was a certain Rasheed Muhammad. He was personally recruited by Alamoudi, who pinned the crescent moon on the chaplain’s uniform in 1993. Rasheed has had close links with the Muslim World League—an arm of the Saudi government suspected by US authorities of providing logistical and financial support to al Qaeda terrorist operations. The two main approving bodies as of 2003 for Muslim chaplains have been the Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences (GSISS) and the ISNA, already mentioned as a Saudi-funded vehicle for spreading Wahhabi Islam in the United States. Both groups are heavily linked to Islamic terrorism. The GSISS, according to criminal indictments, is part of a Saudi-funded jihad-terrorism financing ring known as the Safa Group. Although the military says the GSISS is not technically an approving body, this is weak comfort as nine of the fourteen Muslim chaplains in 2002 were GSISS trained, and at least one of the others, one-time terror suspect Capt Yousef Yee, received his training from “axis of evil” member Syria.

The Army Chaplaincy is now offering a workshop on Islam this May 2006, linked to on the Army Knowledge Online portal. This time, the Army has found an old-stock American convert-to-Islam to educated our chaplains, Berkeley graduate Dr. Vincent Cornell. Unfortunately, the patina of “peaceful Islam” Dr. Cornell wears is distressingly thin. As a professor of history at the University of Arkansas, he is the Directory of the King Fahd Center for Middle East and Islamic Studies—a Saudi-funded institution if ever there was one. For those not in the loop, Saudi Arabia is the antithesis, even more so than the Soviet Union, of virtually every value the United States holds dear. Here, in the State Department’s own words:

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions.

In addition, lashings, amputations, beheadings, and stonings are carried out as proscribed under Sharia law, and women are forbidden to drive cars. Slavery is still widely, if unofficially, practiced, so much so that the State Department views it as a Tier 3 country with respect to human trafficking (slavery). Tier 3 is reserved for countries “whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so.” Saudi policies are directly attributable to the official state religion of Wahhabi Islam Saudi Arabia practices. With such a loathsome ideology, one should find it highly disturbing that Saudi petro-dollars are allowed to train military chaplains, fund state university institutions and build large Wahhabi mosques throughout the United States, all while banning any reciprocal endeavors in Saudi Arabia. Mind you, this is not a private Saudi group funding these projects, but the Saudi state itself—basically a physical extension of Islam. Essentially, these mosques are like Saudi citadels on our shores, spouting destruction to America. Shouldn’t the military be extremely concerned? Back to Mr. Cornell: He has also collaborated with a certain Susan L. Douglass, in the book “The Rise and Spread of Islam: 622-1500.” Douglass, a Muslim convert, taught for ten years at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Virginia. The Saudi school’s recent valedictorian, Omar Abu Ali, is now in jail for plotting to assassinate the President of the United States. The school’s textbooks have heavily promoted hatred of non-Muslims, referring to Christians and Jews as “apes and pigs,” for instance, and encouraged war against “unbelievers.” It may be that the urbane intellectual Cornell is in fact the best possible expert on Islam anyone is able to find. Considering his dubious funding and contacts, this itself is an indictment of the awful state of affairs in the Islamic world. Considering all, the Army may want to seriously reevaluate its philosophy toward Islam, rather than trawl further for polluted catch. What seems to be the rush? Why pander to Islamists, instead of demanding real reform? What is one to make of the Orwellian state of affairs that inverts reality (i.e., “War is Peace”) caused by ignoring Islamic violence? Why does the government seem bent on promoting the “slow jihad” of Saudi Arabia (as opposed to the “fast jihad” of Osama Bin Laden) rather than the “no jihad” interests of the vast majority of the American people? I personally believe it is ignorance, pseudo-tolerance, and the small but steady pressure of a malignant fifth column that has got us into our current situation. Rather than pretending to “see no evil” with Islam, maybe we should be studying whether ancient passages from the Koran directly influence current Muslim behavior. Sowing the seeds of doubt in the minds of jihadists may be the beginning of mitigating their militancy. It also might help lead to a core-reform of Islam. We should consider asking the following:

1. Does the story of Mohammed’s order to behead 600-900 members of the Jewish Qurayzi tribe drive the terrorist’s desire to behead “infidels” in Iraq as an act of worshipful imitation? 2. What inspiration do today’s terrorists get from the “love of death,” first espoused by Muhammad’s followers when they told the Persians, “You will lose because we love death more than you love life.” 3. How does Muhammad’s condemnation of “icons” lead to the destruction of non-Muslim art, including the massive statues of Buddha at Bamiyan, Afghanistan in 2002 and the “cartoon riots” of 2006? 4. How may passages in the Koran calling on Muslims to kill “infidels” have led to 9/11? Nazi-like anti-Semitism? Lying (al-takiya) when dealing with non-Muslims? 5. How do the Koran and Hadith support the widespread Muslim view that non-Muslims are “unclean” or “filthy,” thus less worthy of human dignity? 6. How does the marriage and consummation with a nine-year-old girl, Aisha, by Mohammed drive the child marriage industry in the Middle East? 7. How does the Koran directly and indirectly promote rape of non-Muslim women and Muslim boys, by cloistering Muslim women away from society, in what has become known as “gender apartheid” and objectifying non-Muslim women as war prizes, fit only for slavery and concubinism?

Such questions may be “pointing out the elephant in the living room” or declaring “the emperor wears no clothes,” but the alternative is even less palatable. Continue on the current road, and the mayhem of the Middle East will soon descend on us, permanently. Do we really want more Spc. Ryan Andersons, Capt. Waseef Hassouns, or Sgt. Hasan Akbars—the last being the soldier who killed two and wounded 14 in a jihadist attack on fellow soldiers while deployed to Kuwait? Unsurprisingly, Akbar’s Muslim chaplain at Fort Campbell was trained and certified by the Saudi-funded organizations mentioned earlier. As an Army public affairs specialist, I must take a special interest in the press. Both the Army and the press are reflections of society, and thus often exhibit the same tendencies. These tendencies are virtually impossible to prove to a hostile audience unwilling to accept a verdict. I will try through example. The following are clippings on political correctness toward Islam in the United States.

1. From the National Review review of the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam” by Robert Spencer: The past three decades have borne witness to a rising, global tide of terrorist atrocities, wrought by Muslims who proclaim without apology — indeed, with animating pride — that their actions are compelled by Islam. Nonetheless, the quickest ticket to oblivion on PC's pariah express is to suggest that the root cause of Islamic terrorism might be, well, Islam. 2. From FoxNews, by Father Jonathan Morris: The Muslim tradition leaves no room for interpretation or theological development. The Koran is what it is. Those who dare to interpret are considered untrue Muslims, or Westerners in disguise. This tradition of cemented theology can almost work if all play by the rules. But they don’t. The radical imams of the ilk of bin Laden have a monopoly on theological interpretation. And their grip is tightening, on Islam and on the world. Theological problems don’t vanish with good public relations, political dialogue, or military force. They are resolved with good theology. Healthy Muslim clerics, who love God and love their religion, have a choice to make — either remain quiet and prepare to witness a clash of civilizations of epic proportion, or be willing to wrestle with the bad theology of their boisterous spokesmen. Can you provide to your fellow Muslims a convincing interpretation of a peaceful and loving Koran? We hope you can. 3. From Newswise.com: Jihadis place a great deal of emphasis on developing comprehensive public relations and communication strategies to aid their side in the media war. That’s according to communication researchers at Arizona State University who studied recently declassified al-Qaida documents and other open source reports captured in Iraq and Afghanistan during U.S. military operations. “Their strategies are crafted after careful audience analysis and message adaptation, two of the most fundamental rules underlying any communication or public relations campaign,” write the authors of a report released this week titled: “Communication and Media Strategy in the Jihadi War of Ideas.” Contributing to the report are faculty members and graduate students in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication in ASU’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Professor Steven Corman, who co-authored the report with graduate student Jill Schiefelbein, says that in his experience “people are surprised the jihadis think of media as a weapon.”

The links between Islamic terror groups and their political arms, as well as events like the anti-native riots by Muslims in Europe and the apostasy laws in Afghanistan, pointedly highlight that this war is between Islamic-supremacy on one hand, and freedom and democracy on the other. It is not about “Israel” or “oil,” nor is it a fight with a particular country or sect. In Afghanistan, the US-funded Sharia state nearly executed Abdul Rahman for the “crime” of converting to Christianity. He only escaped when the Afghan government, shrinking in the light of international outrage, declared Rahman insane and sent him packing to Italy. The inhuman apostasy laws remain on the books. The President stated that “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” What is a public affairs specialist to make of the United States’ continued friendship with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait in light of their support for Palestinian ruling-party Hamas, a terror group with links to al Qaeda? Or support for the new Sharia states of Iraq and Afghanistan, when the President was so clear? Should we tell the public that the President’s ultimatum was nothing more than “politics as usual?” How can I, as a military public affairs specialist, properly digest and explain this matter to the press without appearing deceitful? The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We must remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We must recognize that we are in a fight with the non-religious ideology of political Islam, not a religion in the traditional sense. This ideology crosses into state matters of law and administration, and does not respect democracy. The Islamists can only win by deception, and cannot maintain rule. Communist superpower China could very well rule the earth if Islamists defeat the West and are likewise defeated. The jihadists seem oblivious to this possibility. Concluding, I find it frustrating that Americans are kept in the dark about the roots of Islamic terrorism. While serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom as a public affairs specialist, I never met anyone, including intelligence specialists, familiar with terms like dhimmi, jizya, kufr, and al-takiya. In my opinion, Karen Hughes and every public affairs specialist should be very familiar with these terms. Sites such as memri.org, jihadwatch.org, dhimmiwatch.org, and faithfreedom.org* should be in their Internet favorites. Authors such as Bat Yeor, Ibn Warraq, Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer, and Paul Sperry should be well known. Islamic dissidents such as Wafa Sultan, Brigitte Gabriel, Whalid Shoebat, Abdul Rahman, and Mohammad al-Harbi should be as familiar to our public affairs specialists as Soviet dissidents once were. The fascist history of modern Islamic terrorism must be widely publicized. This includes Palestinian Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, mentor to Yasser Arafat, a Nuremburg war criminal wanted for collaborating in the Holocaust while in Berlin as a guest of Hitler and for the formation of Muslim SS units in Bosnia. Public affairs specialists must stop writing fatuous stories calling for non-Muslims to “respect” Muslims by, for example, not eating within their sight during Ramadan, or not looking at a Muslim woman. Advocating such one-way positions is “dhimmitude,” eerily similar to appeasing the Klan. Direct comparisons between Muslim and free countries would be much more appropriate for our public affairs specialists and their American audiences. Non-Muslims must have a place to voice concern in the military if Saudi-funded institutions are being granted such influence. A recent symposium on Islamist terrorism in Washington (americastruthforum.com) may have begun the ball rolling. There, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Christians and secularists voiced outrage at Islamist terror, which accounts for virtually 100% of international terrorism. The military must not appear to backpedal once political correctness has worn thin. If it does, military public affairs specialists will lose all credibility.

“The near future will be in the hands of Islam”—nuclear madman Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared in Malaysia, Mar 2, 2006.

“The Wrath of Allah is on its way! The mushroom cloud is on its way! The real Holocaust is on its way!”—Chant at an Islamic Thinkers Society rally in New York, April 20, 2006.

Sincerely,

SGT Publius (armypressman@yahoo.com)

Note: Footnotes were not used in this letter, as everything is easily and quickly verifiable via an Internet search engine. I invite the reader to do so. Any errors of fact are unintentional and will be corrected if notified.

*Faithfreedom.org, run by the brilliant and brave Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina is already unjustly blocked by Army networks as “hate speech,” while it’s anti-Western imitator, faithfreedom.com is not blocked—another tip off that Islamists are at the controls of the propaganda war even within the military.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.