Muslim Influence in Pentagon Prevails

[Protectionist]

This article recently appeared in ""Recent News" in the website of Act for America, America's premier protectionist organization against Islamization. A chilling expose' of how political correctness (in this case AKA Muslim ass-kissing) is trumping free speech in the US military.

Muslim Influence in Pentagon Prevails

The Thomas More Law Center announced today that it is representing U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, a 1994 Graduate of the U. S. Military Academy at West Point. In April 2012, LTC Dooley, a highly decorated combat veteran, was publically condemned by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and relieved of his teaching assignment because of the negative way Islam was portrayed in an elective course entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.

The actions against LTC Dooley, an instructor involved with this elective, follow a letter to the Department of Defense dated October 19, 2011 and signed by 57 Muslim organizations, demanding that all training materials that they judge to be offensive to Islam be “purged” and instructors “are effectively disciplined.”

To read the entire article from the Thomas More Law Center, please visit:

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=...e&e=4562ff0c34

 

[tecoyah]

Our military consists of American Citizens.

The American Citizenry consist of many faiths...including Muslim.

 

[Protectionist]

Our military consists of American Citizens.

The American Citizenry consist of many faiths...including Muslim.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP. Another of your "brilliant" comments, so pervasive in this forum.

The "American Citizenry" also consists of many ideologies (KKK, American Nazi Party, Aryan Nations, etc) Should we alter our speech in the military to suit them too ? I guess they don't have the clout the Muslim groups have (or the money).

 

[tecoyah]

It is very clear you have a major problem with Islam and Muslims in general...we get it. While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, it is getting rather unpleasant to see your hatred of it plastered all over this forum.

Allow me to be the first to agree with everything you have stated, will state, or might be thinking of stating. Now...is there some other topic you might want to discuss?

 

[Mermaid]

pro , start from cutting all your ties with saudi arabia if you really hate islam.

 

[Protectionist]

It is very clear you have a major problem with Islam and Muslims in general...we get it. While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, it is getting rather unpleasant to see your hatred of it plastered all over this forum.

Allow me to be the first to agree with everything you have stated, will state, or might be thinking of stating. Now...is there some other topic you might want to discuss?

I don't discuss things with people who are disingenuous. If you can show me that you have overcome that, and have become respectably honest, I'll engage in discussion with you THEN.

As for your inability to accept the TRUTH about Islamic penetration and sedition of American society (AKA as Islamization AKA stealth jihad), all I can say is > not my problem. If you read and research the subject (a lot), as I've done over the past 12 years, you'll arrive at all the same conclusions. Only difference between us is I've done the homework (in 25 books + thousands of their footnoted sources + website material), and you haven't, quite apparently.

And the reality of Islamization is indeed "unpleasant". But that's life. Lots of things are unpleasant. Crime, war, etc. Turning a blind eye and sweeping them under the rug only makes them worse.

As for "hatred", my hatred is of hatred (AKA Islam) and that movement which seeks to destroy American society, for its own ends.

Lastly, the ignorance of Islamization that I am seeing here in this forum, shows that it NEEDS a good deal of protectionist information "plastered all over this forum", to cure that. You're welcome.

 

[Protectionist]

pro , start from cutting all your ties with saudi arabia if you really hate islam.

I don't have any ties with Saudi Arabia, but thanks for the suggestion. It's a good one. :giggle:

 

[Mermaid]

I don't discuss things with people who are disingenuous. If you can show me that you have overcome that, and have become respectably honest, I'll engage in discussion with you THEN.

As for your inability to accept the TRUTH about Islamic penetration and sedition of American society (AKA as Islamization AKA stealth jihad), all I can say is > not my problem. If you read and research the subject (a lot), as I've done over the past 12 years, you'll arrive at all the same conclusions. Only difference between us is I've done the homework (in 25 books + thousands of their footnoted sources + website material), and you haven't, quite apparently.

And the reality of Islamization is indeed "unpleasant". But that's life. Lots of things are unpleasant. Crime, war, etc. Turning a blind eye and sweeping them under the rug only makes them worse.

As for "hatred", my hatred is of hatred (AKA Islam) and that movement which seeks to destroy American society, for its own ends.

Lastly, the ignorance of Islamization that I am seeing here in this forum, shows that it NEEDS a good deal of protectionist information "plastered all over this forum", to cure that. You're welcome.

sorry ,do muslims want the drugs to be legalized?
l wasnt aware of this fact :giggle:

 

[Protectionist]

It is very clear you have a major problem with Islam and Muslims in general...we get it. While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, it is getting rather unpleasant to see your hatred of it plastered all over this forum.

Allow me to be the first to agree with everything you have stated, will state, or might be thinking of stating. Now...is there some other topic you might want to discuss?

Kind of like getting dandruff might be "unpleasant". Better to use a dandruff shampoo than ignore it.

 

[Protectionist]

sorry ,do muslims want the drugs to be legalized?
l wasnt aware of this fact :giggle:

I'm not aware of what you're talking about, and something tells me that might be quite all right. :giggle:

PS - has anyone in this forum ever heard of discussing the TOPIC ?

 

[Mermaid]

I'm not aware of what you're talking about, and something tells me that might be quite all right. :giggle:

PS - has anyone in this forum ever heard of discussing the TOPIC ?

it depends on what you mean by destroying a society.

 

[tecoyah]

I'm not aware of what you're talking about, and something tells me that might be quite all right. :giggle:

PS - has anyone in this forum ever heard of discussing the TOPIC ?

I actually tried to begin discussing the topic, to which you replied:

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP. Another of your "brilliant" comments, so pervasive in this forum.

As a general rule, few will engage you (or your topic) after being insulted. As it seems this is a part of the way you communicate it is unlikely you will be embraced as a worthy debate partner by most.

 

[chris7375]

Ok I will weigh in on the topic. First the article is to broad it does not give much detail as to what Dooley said or did to get him dismissed.

That presents a problem for me the reader in trying to come up with a feasible call on the subject. For me to say they were right or wrong more detail needs to be given. That would be the view I would give and I believe many readers would give.

Now I am all for freedom of speech and believe even instructors are allowed to have their view whether I deem it right or wrong. If this Dooley was providing hate propaganda in the class which the article does not explain again enough to provide an honest opinion. If this is the case then it is within the military's right as it would be for any college to dismiss him.

If he was just teaching a class and doing nothing wrong in teaching the class again it is in the military's right to let him go. Would I agree so much then no I would say he got the raw end of the deal.

Though I think the article is far to vague to come up with an honest opinion.

 

[Protectionist]

it depends on what you mean by destroying a society.

HERE'S what I mean about destroying a society:

Stealth Jihad is THE method of operation of the Muslim Brotherhood as was revealed in the Brotherhood's 1991 Explanatory Memorandum...for North America, discovered by the FBI in 2005, and declassified in the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas terrorist funding trial in 2007 & 2008.

The key words from it are :

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).

If anybody would be lame enough to try to refute this, the US Justice Dept. is the source of the information, and they will back it up. So will the 5 or 6 Muslim Brotherhood leaders convicted in the trial, and now rotting in prison, for the rest of their lives

 

[Protectionist]

I actually tried to begin discussing the topic, to which you replied:



As a general rule, few will engage you (or your topic) after being insulted. As it seems this is a part of the way you communicate it is unlikely you will be embraced as a worthy debate partner by most.

I generally treat others the same way they treat me. If I have insulted you, you may want to take a good hard look at what YOU have been saying that instigated that insult.

 

[tecoyah]

I have done so, and found nothing disrespectful coming from me. If possible, I would appreciate you pointing out where I was insulting.

 

[Protectionist]

Ok I will weigh in on the topic. First the article is to broad it does not give much detail as to what Dooley said or did to get him dismissed.

That presents a problem for me the reader in trying to come up with a feasible call on the subject. For me to say they were right or wrong more detail needs to be given. That would be the view I would give and I believe many readers would give.

Now I am all for freedom of speech and believe even instructors are allowed to have their view whether I deem it right or wrong. If this Dooley was providing hate propaganda in the class which the article does not explain again enough to provide an honest opinion. If this is the case then it is within the military's right as it would be for any college to dismiss him.

If he was just teaching a class and doing nothing wrong in teaching the class again it is in the military's right to let him go. Would I agree so much then no I would say he got the raw end of the deal.

Though I think the article is far to vague to come up with an honest opinion.

I appreciate what appears to be a straightfoward, honest assessment of the OP (and the article linked) from you. Although I do accept the assessment presented in the article, based on various evidences presented, I too would not mind seeing the actual course material that the Muslim groups objected to.

I might suggest that one way to find out out about it would be to simply telephone the Thomas More Law Center and ask them. They could probably tell you in one minute. I don't know if the letter the Muslim groups sent is public information or not, but I'll research it and see what I can find, and post the findings right here in this thread.

In the meantime, here are some of the things in the article which do lend credibility to LTC Dooley's defense, in my view:

1. The Thomas More Law Center considers Dooley's case to be just, and enough to warrant them taking the case. Law offices will not always do that.

2. The comments of Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

3. The comments of Claire M. Lopez, a former CIA agent and strategic policy and intelligence expert.

4. Dooley had previously received an outstanding Officer Evaluation Report (OER) concerning the elective course he had been teaching at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.

5. The course content critical of Islam as an ideology, the guest speakers and their methods of instruction were all pre-approved by the JFSC years ago.

6. Dooley carried the highest student evaluations over the previous 18 months and the highest faculty rating among all active military instructors. In fact, his senior rater in 2011, Brigadier General Marvin Smoot, went so far as to exclusively point out LTC Dooley as the best of his new instructors, specifically mentioning his positive contribution to the Islam elective now under attack by General Dempsey.

7. Dempsey's charge was that Dooley had formally advocated actions outside of U.S. policy. But a preliminary inquiry confirmed the purely notional, conceptual, and theoretical nature of LTC Dooley’s class.

 

[Protectionist]

I have done so, and found nothing disrespectful coming from me. If possible, I would appreciate you pointing out where I was insulting.

You know..... (and also I'm busy responding to Chris7375's thoughtful ON TOPIC post right now)

 

[chris7375]

I appreciate what appears to be a straightfoward, honest assessment of the OP (and the article linked) from you. Although I do accept the assessment presented in the article, based on various evidences presented, I too would not mind seeing the actual course material that the Muslim groups objected to.

I might suggest that one way to find out out about it would be to simply telephone the Thomas More Law Center and ask them. They could probably tell you in one minute. I don't know if the letter the Muslim groups sent is public information or not, but I'll research it and see what I can find, and post the findings right here in this thread.

In the meantime, here are some of the things in the article which do lend credibility to LTC Dooley's defense, in my view:

1. The Thomas More Law Center considers Dooley's case to be just, and enough to warrant them taking the case. Law offices will not always do that.

2. The comments of Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

3. The comments of Claire M. Lopez, a former CIA agent and strategic policy and intelligence expert.

4. Dooley had previously received an outstanding Officer Evaluation Report (OER) concerning the elective course he had been teaching at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.

5. The course content critical of Islam as an ideology, the guest speakers and their methods of instruction were all pre-approved by the JFSC years ago.

6. Dooley carried the highest student evaluations over the previous 18 months and the highest faculty rating among all active military instructors. In fact, his senior rater in 2011, Brigadier General Marvin Smoot, went so far as to exclusively point out LTC Dooley as the best of his new instructors, specifically mentioning his positive contribution to the Islam elective now under attack by General Dempsey.

7. Dempsey's charge was that Dooley had formally advocated actions outside of U.S. policy. But a preliminary inquiry confirmed the purely notional, conceptual, and theoretical nature of LTC Dooley’s class.

Oh I seen all that in the article. It hits me as odd yes that such a decorated and obliviously highly professional instructor would be let go.

Though it reads to me being honest as a resume more or less. It is pointing out all his high points in his career. The problem I find with that is it seems they divert from the issue at hand by doing that. They should have just stated with his consent what he supposedly did wrong. If he did nothing wrong then it should be easy for him to give his consent.

Like I said it is great he was that good but they still fail to present the real issue at hand.

 

[Mermaid]

HERE'S what I mean about destroying a society:

Stealth Jihad is THE method of operation of the Muslim Brotherhood as was revealed in the Brotherhood's 1991 Explanatory Memorandum...for North America, discovered by the FBI in 2005, and declassified in the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas terrorist funding trial in 2007 & 2008.

The key words from it are :

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).

If anybody would be lame enough to try to refute this, the US Justice Dept. is the source of the information, and they will back it up. So will the 5 or 6 Muslim Brotherhood leaders convicted in the trial, and now rotting in prison, for the rest of their lives

so you can say usa should stop supporting the islamist spring in this region?

it seems so..