It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radical’

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
FBI are full of it and they know it. Teaching propaganda like that, disgusting. State sponsored racism. Before it was against african americans (or jews in Germany)... now it's against muslims. Disgusting really.

FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radical’

The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that “main stream” [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding mechanism for combat.”

At the Bureau’s training ground in Quantico, Virginia, agents are shown a chart contending that the more “devout” a Muslim, the more likely he is to be “violent.” Those destructive tendencies cannot be reversed, an FBI instructional presentation adds: “Any war against non-believers is justified” under Muslim law; a “moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah.”


The FBI are also the ones who think that constitutionalists and anti-FED people are terrorists.

FBI, you should be disbanded.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
In the interest of honesty, the linked PDF's that are the source of the Wired article and statement appear to be Power Point presentations pasted to pages of a PDF. All are authored by W. Gawthrop and state the following:


The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any Agency of the United States Government.


Gawthrop's page on the AMU site.

Normally it's customary when being honest and not trying to incite or spin to include disclaimers prominently. Wired should have done that paragraph one. Omission or burying things like this tend to make me not trust sources.

In this case the FBI is teaching no such thing. They laid their hands on a presentation by a Faculty Member at the American Military University and they are his views, not that of the FBI. That makes a huge difference.

I don't see purposefully driving wedges between people in this way as honest or anything but dangerous. To imply the whole FBI is intentionally taught to believe that is likely what one might call a lie in fact.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Islam is not a race, so no racism. As for the claim itself, I believe mainstream muslims in developed countries (including the US) are mostly moderate, tough it is on of the most extremist-friendly religions out there. But the claim is true for middle east, where radical Islamists are mainstream.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Islam is not a religion, it is a cult. People will wake up to this fact someday, but then it will be too late..



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Originally posted by Blaine91555
In the interest of honesty, the linked PDF's that are the source of the Wired article and statement appear to be Power Point presentations pasted to pages of a PDF. All are authored by W. Gawthrop and state the following:


The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any Agency of the United States Government.


In this case the FBI is teaching no such thing. They laid their hands on a presentation by a Faculty Member at the American Military University and they are his views, not that of the FBI. That makes a huge difference.




The source article says they are using the presentation in their training.

Are you saying the government should get a pass for what it teaches its staff as long as they didn't actually author the materials?

If DoE were using Mein Kampf or Marx and Engels to teach education strategy (they probably do
), you'd be incensed...and rightfully so.



edit on 15-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
They're also taught that constitutionalists, veterans, etc are extremists/ terrorists. Just like cops are trained that every citizen might kill them so we're all criminals first.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Several years ago, there was a moderately famous expert on Islam on C2C.

I don't recall his name.

He was talking to one of his high ranking Muslim sources. He asked the Imam, what %% of all Muslims supported violent Jihad in one way or another? 5%? The Imam said "No!"

10%? The Imam said "No!"

What percent?

The Imam said 70%

The expert on Islam did not believe his high ranking Muslim source. So he immediately contacted

TWELVE ADDITIONAL HIGH RANKING MUSLIM SOURCES ALL AROUND THE WORLD AND ASKED THEM THE SAME QUESTION.

EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM, ONE AT A TIME, INDIVIDUALLY, SAID:

70%.


CERTAINLY It is inescapable, regardless of the rationalizing and weasel worded game playing by the proponents . . . THE VIOLENCE AND THE MANDATE FOR VIOLENCE

IS

IN THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS.

That's simply the truth.

Also in the founding documents is the mandate to lie about such things. And, to get the camel's nose under the tent any way possible, on the way to taking over the tent.

History has demonstrated the result every century Islam has existed. The result wherever Islam takes over is always the same. Ruthlessness abounds. Even when a moderate ruler arose, it did not last. The founder was ruthless.

History records that the religion aspect was encouraged on the founder as a MEANS OF CONQUEST.

That has NOT changed.

Ruthlessness is still the norm, the mandate, the strategy, the culture, the habit . . . sometimes it seems like it's even a blood lust goal in itself.

All this clap trap about "The Religion of Peace" is one of the most profound deceptions foisted on the world in recorded history. Saying one thing while DEMONSTRATING RELENTLESSLY THE OPPOSITE is the grossest of hypocrisies.

That folks in rebellion against the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob wish to swallow such deceptive swill is slightly understandable on the one hand and absolutely mystifying in the suicidal nature of sucking up to such ruthlessness on the other.

The only thing I can make slight sense of it with is that it's all philosophical . . . distant . . . intellectual masturbation to claim such nice things about the religion of bloody pieces

UNTIL

it's one's own daughter, sister that marries a Muslim and then begins to be a punching bag, a piece of abused property.

It's all quite theoretical until one's own neck comes under the knife of Sharia law.

Peddle the nice deceptions elsewhere. I'm not buying.

BTW, I had a Muslim roommate that slept about 2 feet away from me for over a year.

I'm not exactly ignorant about the subject, myself.


edit on 15/9/2011 by BO XIAN because: fix underline and bold

edit on 15/9/2011 by BO XIAN because: footnote



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I'm saying they included the disclaimer in the presentation so those viewing it would know it is not coming from the FBI but instead from an author outside the FBI. I like clarity. In this case it makes a big difference here. Wired did not do due diligence in their article and implied the FBI authored the documents, which is not true.

For all we or anyone else knows it may have been part of a series of presentations giving numerous points of view.

I know too many Muslims to ever believe what is in that presentation and I'm sure there are many Muslims in the FBI. I highly doubt that presentation is a good example of the FBI's actual views. In fact I think its being misrepresented to give a false impression. Sensationalized like the title.

We don't need more wedges between us; that much is very clear. Care needs to be taken and Wired must have an agenda.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm saying they included the disclaimer in the presentation so those viewing it would know it is not coming from the FBI but instead from an author outside the FBI.


That distinction is completely meaningless and in my view indefensible in the context of ANY government training program whose point is not to demonstrate the fact of biased materials.



Originally posted by Blaine91555
In this case it makes a big difference here.


No it doesn't. The point of the training was not to demonstrate the fact of biased materials.


Originally posted by Blaine91555
Wired did not do due diligence in their article and implied the FBI authored the documents, which is not true.


Wrong again. The article clearly states who authored the material, and in fact makes the point that he has a long history of producing highly controversial material.



Several of these briefings were the work of a single author: an FBI intelligence analyst named William Gawthrop.



Originally posted by Blaine91555
I like clarity.


In this thread, I think not so much.



Originally posted by Blaine91555
For all we or anyone else knows it may have been part of a series of presentations giving numerous points of view.


The article explains that too.



“The training materials in question were delivered as Stage Two training to counterterrorism-designated agents,” Allen adds. “This training was largely derived from a variety of open source publications and includes the opinion of the analyst that developed the lesson block.”

...

“The development of effective training is a constantly evolving process,” says FBI spokesman Allen. “Sometimes the training is adapted for long-term use. This particular training segment was delivered a single time and not used since.”



Likely because someone with sense noticed it would be a problem.



Originally posted by Blaine91555
I know too many Muslims to ever believe what is in that presentation and I'm sure there are many Muslims in the FBI.


Really?

Here is what the current FBI assistant director, Steven Martinez, said about the agency just a few months go to a bunch of law students:




Though he admitted the FBI’s demographics could better reflect the country’s population, Martinez hopes the FBI will expand its diversity.

“I can speak to it myself, coming from a Hispanic background, it’s still surprising to me to look around the room and often, I am the only Hispanic in the room,” he said.

Link.



So you think there are more Muslims in the agency than Hispanics?





Originally posted by Blaine91555
I highly doubt that presentation is a good example of the FBI's actual views. In fact I think its being misrepresented to give a false impression. Sensationalized like the title.

We don't need more wedges between us; that much is very clear. Care needs to be taken and Wired must have an agenda.


I think it exposes a truth about the perils of government power and how it can so easily be abused even in the absence of 'official' direction.


I leave you with the words of James Madison:




“On a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority, trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other”

...

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy”

...


“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.”



How right he was.




edit on 16-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join