On Genocidal West Point Professor William C. Bradford And Retractions

william_bradford

West Point professor, William C. Bradford published a 200 page paper in the National Security Law Journal which’s main points The Guardian summed up,

William C Bradford, proposes to threaten “Islamic holy sites” as part of a war against undifferentiated Islamic radicalism. That war ought to be prosecuted vigorously, he wrote, “even if it means great destruction, innumerable enemy casualties, and civilian collateral damage”.

Other “lawful targets” for the US military in its war on terrorism, Bradford argues, include “law school facilities, scholars’ home offices and media outlets where they give interviews” – all civilian areas, but places where a “causal connection between the content disseminated and Islamist crimes incited” exist.

The West Point faculty member urges the US to wage “total war” on “Islamism”, using “conventional and nuclear force and [psychological operations]”, in order to “leave them prepared to coexist with the West or be utterly eradicated”. He suggests in a footnote that “threatening Islamic holy sites might create deterrence, discredit Islamism, and falsify the assumption that decadence renders Western restraint inevitable”. (h/t: JD)

It is surprising that this paper was able to make it past the editor and was included in the journal in the first place. It makes an elaborate case for the killing of professors and others who are deemed enemies of the state for criticizing the “War On Terror.” It employs the methodology of Robert Spencer in describing critics of the military and US policy as “useful idiots” and sympathizers of the catch-all bogeyman known as “Islamists.”

Most of the news reports have focused on Bradford’s fascistic call to eliminate professors and attack academic institutions. The retraction by the journal focuses completely on this aspect of his paper, which granted is the central thesis,

This past spring the Journal made a mistake in publishing a highly controversial article, Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict Academy as an Islamist Fifth Column, 3 Nat’l Sec. L.J. 278 (2015), by William C. Bradford, who is currently an assistant professor at the United States Military Academy. As the incoming Editorial Board, we want to address concerns regarding Mr. Bradford’s contention that some scholars in legal academia could be considered as constituting a fifth column in the war against terror; his interpretation is that those scholars could be targeted as unlawful combatants. The substance of Mr. Bradford’s article cannot fairly be considered apart from the egregious breach of professional decorum that it exhibits.  We cannot “unpublish” it, of course, but we can and do acknowledge that the article was not presentable for publication when we published it, and that we therefore repudiate it with sincere apologies to our readers.

Moving forward, the current Editorial Board is committed to generating legitimate scholarly debate, representing all points of view, in the area of national security law. However, we have learned from this experience, and we recognize the responsibility that attends our publication decisions. The process of selecting articles is one our Editorial Board takes very seriously, and we are re-examining our selection process to ensure that we publish high quality scholarly articles.

A welcomed and necessary retraction by the Journal to save face after this embarrassing incident, though it doesn’t tell us why they published or made this “mistake” in the first place.

It is telling that the retraction doesn’t mention another factor why Bradford’s article can be considered as exhibiting an “egregious breach of professional decorum”: the fact that it considers threatening “total war” and use of nuclear strikes on “Islamists” and Muslim holy sites as a reasonable strategy! Shouldn’t that be included in the whole reason why this paper was so awful?

This is Why Radical Christians are One of the Greatest Threats to the US Constitution

Santorum_Separation_Church_and_StateRick Santorum on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos

For the past several years Loonwatch writers have repeatedly made the very significant (and obvious) point that radical Christian Islamophobes seek to undermine the constitution of the USA by entangling church and state; i.e. undermining the separation of Church and State.

We have also pointed out that the fervent fear-mongering about “Islamization,” a fairytale concept, is nothing more than projection on the part of these radicals. (Propaganda about the “Islamization” of the USA is even more ridiculous when one considers history; the fact that America was forcibly “Christianized” by colonial settlers and their offspring.)

Many Radical Christians today believe America has changed too much and that the superior place of Christianity needs to be reasserted, i.e. re-Christianization. This thought doesn’t only permeate the GOP, in fact it has captured the GOP. This much is clear from the ongoing reality TV circus known as the Republican primary debates.

Take Rick Santorum, it was recently revealed that he “felt like throwing up” when he first read JFK’s famous speech on the separation of church and state. He was questioned about this by George Stephanopoulos, Santorum replied that he felt like vomiting after reading the first substantive line of the speech in which JFK said, “Apparently it is important for me to state again, not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America in which the separation between church and state is absolute. Santorum went on to say,

I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

This is a leading Republican candidate for the presidency saying this, it’s not something that should be simply ignored. Can one imagine if Rep.Keith Ellison, a Muslim Congressman had said the above? For a surety the Islamophobesphere would be flailing wildly about “Islamization” and the impending Sharia take over in Ellison’s home state of Minnesota.

One must also ask where is the condemnation from loons such as Robert Spencer, a fellow Catholic? We can answer our own question, Spencer is not interested in condemning this threat because he likely agrees with Santorum. Spencer in the past has spoken in forums where he has agreed with other speakers attacking the Enlightenment. His attacks weren’t of the philosophical post-modernist variety either but couched in defense of the faith rhetoric. As I wrote at the time,

Spencer agrees with Professor Kreeft regarding the Enlightenment being a threat to Catholicism though he didn’t explicitly say that Islam was less of a threat. I can see how Ultra-Conservative Catholics may rail against the Enlightenment, it was the era which saw a secularist revolt in the name of reason against the Catholic Church and which led to formulas for the Separation of Church and State, it also witnessed the decline of the power of the Catholic Church in the temporal realm.

Coming back to the main topic, I don’t believe Santorum misspoke. I don’t believe Santorum misunderstood what JFK meant or the impetus behind why he gave that famous 1960 speech. I don’t believe Santorum was making a point about how voices of faith need to be heard in the public square, etc.

Santorum believes America is a Christian country, he believes the “founding fathers” meant for it to stay that way and in fact supported such a notion. I am not sure whether Santorum follows the Dominionist ideology, (an ideology that seems to plague Protestants mostly), but he clearly believes the Church has a part to play in the operation of government.

This incident reveals the deep hypocrisy and faux loyalty to the Constitution amongst many of the Islamophobes and the populist politicians who are riding the Islam/Muslim-bashing wave. Islam and Muslims are being used as a distraction that serves to 1.) make us lose sight of the real issues, and 2.) covers a darker intent of reconquista, rechristianization by any means necessary.

Lastly, I want to clarify that this post is obviously not an attack on Christianity and should not be understood that way. The great majority of Christians are as repulsed as any other citizen when they hear such inanities spewing forth from the mouths of politicians speaking in the name of their faith. They are also on the front lines actively fighting this scourge.

*******************************

A very good video from the Young Turks on Rick Santorum’s attack on the Separation of Church and State:

Again, Robert Spencer Proves he Hates the Constitution

For Robert Spencer to allow his writer Marisol to make a big issue out of an infringement upon constitutionally granted liberties, one must wonder if his loyalties lie to this country and its laws or to his own agenda.

As a matter of fact, Spencer is no stranger to the support of anti-American, anti-constitutional sentiments as we have noted before. Despite the rhetoric on his site, make no mistake that Spencer and his ilk are vehemently anti-Democracy.

On Spencer’s hate blog, Marisol insinuates that the Muslim Hertz workers want to get paid for praying, as if that was their intention:

Reasonable accommodations don’t always mean you get everything you want. But this is about getting paid to pray, and making the break a hands-off affair for supervisors.

Marisol is inciting that Muslims want to shove Islam down peoples throat.  It is the tired conspiracy of “Islamization” and “Creeping Sharia.”

It appears that the employees had no prior warning to the stipulations of their breaks for prayer until they were ambiguously informed of the rule through a supervisor who simply told them that they couldn’t pray during company time.

At no point was it referenced that contractually they were obligated to clock out for prayer breaks, but that they simply couldn’t pray. The way that the rule was enforced is in direct opposition to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the good old US of A, which guarantees free exercise of religion.

Original news article can be found here

Robert Spencer Reads with Special Police Blotter Glasses

It look like he is squinting.

Robert Spencer must wear certain glasses when reading anything related to Islam and Muslims. These “special” glasses are perfect for those with dogmatic minds who wish to read everything from a particular biased and hateful perspective.

For instance today Spencer writes about a  Muslim woman from California who was forced to take her hijab off in jail:

California: Muslim defendant sues county over hijab removal in jail

They made her take off her hijab for security reasons, but who cares about security when Muslim practices must be accommodated?

“Muslim defendant can sue over hijab removal,” by Bob Egelko for the San Francisco Chronicle, March 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

All you have to do is read the whole article and you will understand why this woman is suing the county. I am not making this up Spencer, it was in the article:

The court returned the case to a federal judge to decide whether the deputies interfered with Khatib’s religious freedom without a compelling security need.

Spencer seems to imply that prisoners don’t have freedom of religion, especially if they are Muslim, but that’s good old Spencer for you, fighting freedom at every turn.

The article was not simply about undue religious accommodation and as was related in the article there was no “compelling security need” that required that the woman be forced to remove her hijab. Spencer of course wants to turn this into something it isn’t, he wants to imply that this is an example of ‘Muslims taking over,’ or ‘America “submitting” to Islam,’ but what are we to expect from the police blotter who wears “special glasses?”

——————————-

In another post, Spencer writes about CIA contractor, Raymond Davis, released after paying 2.34mln dollars in compensation to the family of his victims who thereafter pardoned him; implicit in this is Davis’ acceptance that he wrongfully murdered these two. In Islamic Law this payment is known as “Diyaa,” commonly translated as “blood money” or what is known in the West as “punitive damages.”

And what was Spencer’s catechistic complaint:

And why is the U.S. submitting to Sharia in this regard? In better days, a team of commandos would have done the job.

Spencer again sees this as an example of America somehow submitting to the bogeyman monster of “sharia” which is all together more ridiculous when we consider that Raymond Davis actually killed two people and admitted as much when he implicitly apologized for the deed by paying the family. However, Spencer cares little about the lives of these two Pakistani men, he thinks commandos should swoop into Islamabad and violate a nation’s sovereignty, not a surprise considering Spencer in the past has supported calls for genocide against Pakistanis.

Peter King’s “Muslim Hearings” are Political Theater to Target Muslims

Peter King’s “Muslim Hearings” are Political Theater to Target Muslims

Loonwatch was live blogging the controversial (anti)-Muslim Hearings being chaired by bigoted ex-IRA terrorist supporter Peter King. It was a circus. It devolved along partisan lines with Republicans predictably falling behind the rhetoric and narrative of Peter King. Democratic Congressmen/women issued strong rebukes: Rep. Sheila J. Lee, Rep. Al Green, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Andre Carson, Rep. Laura Richardson, Rep. Sanchez, and others delivered the message home that these Hearings were nothing more than political theater meant to castigate and intimidate a minority group and most importantly they were bereft of facts and therefore unbeneficial.

The leading witnesses for King were non-experts, Zuhdi Jasser, AbdiRizak Bihi and Melvin Bledsoe, all of these individuals were bereft of any credentials or expertise in the field of radicalization, terrorism or extremism. Zuhdi Jasser is considered an apologist for Neo-Cons and is viewed with suspicion amongst American Muslims for his close association with Islamophobes and war-mongerers. AbdiRizak was incomprehensible at times and much of what he and Bledsoe said were anecdotal and not factual evidence.

King began the hearings with what can only be classified as a bigoted comment, he said, “Moderate leadership must emerge from the Muslim community.” He said this to set up a straw man argument for what would become a recurring attack on CAIR, almost making it into a hearing about CAIR.

After getting its name wrong, calling it the “Committee of American Islamic Relations,” he and other Congressmen labeled CAIR a Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood group. This is the usual trope brought forth by Right-wingers and anti-Muslims such as Robert Spencer and co., the best response came from Sheriff Lee Baca (one of the anti-Loons of 2010) when he said, ‘If CAIR is this terrorist group or has terrorist links then why hasn’t the FBI prosecuted them? Why haven’t they charged them? They wouldn’t be around if they were terrorist or terrorist sympathizers.’

Some highlights included:

Keith Ellison made three important points: 1.) Security is important to all American Muslims, 2.) Hearings threaten our security and 3.) We need increased engagement with Muslims.

Ellison also got quite emotional while mentioning the story of a Muslim first responder who died saving people but was the victim of a smear campaign by Islamophobes who attempted to link him to the 9/11 attacks.

Andre Carson brought up an excellent point about the fact that cooperation between law enforcement and communities such as the American Muslim community is endangered by the backdoor actions and methodologies of  organizations such as the FBI when they send agent provocateurs into Muslim mosques. Such actions cause distrust and engender fear that Muslims’ civil rights and liberties are being violated. One really only has to look at the example in California of the criminal Craig Montielh who was later arrested and confessed that he was sent by the FBI on a fishing expedition to entrap Muslims.

There were also other quite interesting WTF moments: Such as when Peter King mentioned Kim Kardashian and CAIR in the same sentence. Or when non-expert witness Melvin Bledsoe told Rep. Al Green “you don’t know what these hearings are about.” There was also the earlier moment when Peter King denied making the comment that “there are too many mosques in America.” A blatant falsity.

We will have more in depth coverage but it is safe to say that American Muslims are in for a rocky Islamophobic time with these hearings.

America’s Islamophobic Politician Takes a Step Back

Spencer and Geller’s champion seems to be taking a step back on his extremist rhetoric, even saying he “respects Islam.” Can you imagine Spencer ever saying that?

Allen West used to be fond of saying Islam is not a religion at all but it now seems he is changing his tune and claiming that he against the “radical jihadist movement” and most surprisingly of all that he “respects Islam.” I don’t believe him at all, it sounds to me like when Geller said she “loves Muslims.” Don’t you love how deceptive these

Allen West defends remarks on Islam

By William Gibson

Several religious leaders told South Florida Congressman Allen West on Wednesday they have “deep concern” over his recent comments about a Muslim colleague in Congress and about “your tendency to offer intemperate comments about Islam.”

West immediately replied that he respects Islam, has fought to protect religious freedom and has directed his scorn only at “a radical jihadist movement.”

The flap came over West’s comments at town hall meetings in South Florida and in a recent interview on the “Shalom Show,” a TV program about Jewish life and Israel.

The religious leaders from Jewish, Christian and inter-faith groups wrote a letter to West accusing him of calling U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the “antithesis of the principles on which this country was established” because he is Muslim.

“Regrettably, this is just the latest example of your tendency to offer intemperate comments about Islam,” the letter says. “At a town hall meeting during your campaign, you characterized Islam as America’s enemy and asserted, `Islam is a totalitarian, theocratic political ideology; it is not a religion.’ Such untrue and inflammatory remarks intensify an unsettling trend of anti-Muslim rhetoric and fear in our country. They are also likely to confuse your constituents as to the differences between radical, Islamic extremists and non-violent adherents to Islam.”

The letter was signed by the Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance; Rabbi Jack Moline, director of public policy for The Rabbinical Assembly; Rabbi David Saperstein, director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and the Rev. J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

In response, West said on Wednesday his comments on Ellison “are not about his Islamic faith but about his continued support of CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations.”

“It is the extremist, radical element that has hijacked Islam that presents a dangerous threat to both our country and our allies throughout the world,” West said in a return letter. “This radical jihadist movement has no place in the United States of America or anywhere on earth.”

“The problem is, these fanatics are often supported by certain groups and organizations that masquerade as more peaceful moderates,” West wrote. “Organizations such as CAIR have long histories of supporting violent anti-American and anti-Israel terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

West told the letter-writers he shares their goal to exercise and safeguard religious tolerance.