In response to articles written by the blogger Spencer Ackerman and posted on sites euphemistically named, for example, "Think Progress", the Obama administration has taken steps to remove any mention of Islam from training courses and material for law enforcement officers. Getting sidetracked as I usually do, allow me to publicly wonder how the Left decided to collectively think that their way of thought is progressive. I can not come up with any idea of a system that is more regressive than that which is promulgated by the Left. For those who know me, the only comparison I could make is if I named a blog site "Neat and Clean Garage". So from this point on until the curriculum undergoes major repairs, FBI agents and others responsible for meeting the terror threat will not be allowed to given any training on Islamic teachings, mindset, scriptures, or exhortations by examples in how these pertain to unchecked aggression. We have become a society that behaves like 19th century Sicilians who will not speak of such things.
The military, always the first to get forced to excise necessary information from training courses provided to its members, has already diluted their training material to ensure that Koranic references are omitted since we can't have our soldiers, etc., being aware of the mindset of their opponents. Those of the Marine Corps, including former Marines like myself, may be sent "to the shores of Tripoli" but we can't know what those who live in Tripoli teach and believe. But military personnel do, of course get told that the Crusades are a major factor in why many of the Islamic worlds feel the need to attack the West. This of course is a classic rhetorical fallacy which can be exposed relatively easily.
1. The Crusades were a response to Islamic militarism and aggressive conquest. Christian thought, unlike that of Islam, had no provision for warfare in the service of God. Early Christianity had problems with allowing a Christian to even be in an army. Not until Augustine of Hippo did an influential Christian come to articulate the idea of a "Just War". The
To close this one, the aggressor can't proclaim that he is upset that his victim has begun to copy and use his own methods against him.
2. The Crusades, as mentioned above, not only were the result of a substantial build-up of arguments to justify, they were extraordinarily brief in the span of history. While Islamic aggression has been an integral part of their scriptures, practice, and world from the beginning in the 7th century AD until today, the Crusades lasted less than two hundred years. They were a blip on the radar.
3. The West lost the crusades after being ultimately driven out by the Mamelukes. How does one pretend to be outraged by winning a campaign? Do the Russians and others advocate war against the people of
4. Aside from the fact that contemporary Muslim commentators complained that Muslims preferred to live under the more frugal Franks with less taxes than what they were accustomed to pay to Muslim lords, Muslims made no mention of being bothered or hurt by the Crusades until General Allenby marched into Jerusalem in the closing days of WWI. Only after that does the Crusades come up as a sore subject.
After a couple of articles and a feigned horror expressed on NPR, the entity responsible "for the common defense" abandons information that would provide insight for out military and law enforcement. All it took was throwing out the Muslim Brotherhood- created term "Islamophobia"* and the code of Omerta gets placed upon all training material
* Note that the term Islamophobia is an inherently and falsely created misnomer as no one to my knowledge has, as of yet, produced a person who has a phobia of Islam.