FBI Teaches Agents: 'Mainstream' Muslims Are 'Violent, Radical'

This is the FBI not the TSA.

Muslims need to be watched closely, not 4 year old girls and 90 year old grannies.

Word in advance, if you do not want to hear anything against the Islamic faith then don't read my post.

Ok, I am usually all for live and let live, but in recent weeks I have made it kinda a cause of mine, to study Islam (Islaam) who was Mohammad? yes, it's Mohammad, that is spelled correctly, and a multitude of other religions. And I honestly think before anybody jumps on the defensive for the Islam religion, you seriously need to research it.

Research who was Mohammad, research what he did, what he taught, what he friggin got away with, under the thing that he was a "prophet" convenient prophesies so that he would be allowed got away with, under the thing that he was a "prophet" convenient prophesies so that he would be allowed 16 wives, would be one of them, their max allowed is 4 by the way. This is the man these ppl follow, you need to know everything about him, to understand what they are about.

You need to do the research, to understand how it is possible that they are the fastest growing religion in the world, why that is a problem, what this means for the world, what it means for women especially. Research how they see women, you will understand the veil thing, has absolutely nothing to do with keeping her pure for her husband. Not that that is even truly a requirement in the Qur'an, the Qur'an requires a woman to cover her head, this is because of a teaching of Paul, in the city of Corinth, where they had a huge problem with prostitutes, in those days, a prostitute was required to either cut hair, or shave her hair. Paul told the ppl that women must cover their heads, so that they would not be confused with the prostitutes, in which case, even long hair counts.

Research what Mohammad teaches as reasons for marrying a woman, you will understand the growth.

As for the rest, they really do have this idea that it's them against the world. Not just the Jews, the world. Now, while I do not approve of the American gov ways, I truly don't, and I believe there is always an ulterior motive when it comes to them, I am saying on this one, they are quite correct, I'm only concerned about the ulterior motive, and once they have sorted out this problem, who is next?

In every single religion on earth, you will get your extremists, it is unfortunate, but it is true, you do get them, ppl that take the whole religious thing out of context and become violent, or just do stupid stuff, but, when we are talking about the Islamic religion, we are not talking about some small extremist group, they are huge, and they are growing by the day, they practice shari (sorry I can never get that ones spelling right) law, research what that law is, before you jump on the defensive. If you want for example your daughter that got raped to get stoned, and the perve to get a wrap on the knuckles, by all means, stop the FBI. However, I don't think that's what you want. Do yourself the favor, research it, before you jump on the defense.

Warning, to anybody that is too sensitive, this video is disturbing.



With this video, I just want to add, that me posting this video does not necessarily mean I am pro the Jews either, I am not of any specific religions affiliation, I just wanted to research the different religions, and I am not done yet, I simply am trying to show / tell you something, you need to know. I apologize beforehand for all that did not want to know all this, did not want to hear this, and did not want to see this. People, we have a problem, it is serious

I do not think that the way to fix this, is with violence, the ideal thing would be to get through to them, get them to realize the world is not out to get them, because they truly believe this. Violence will only serve to justify them. I am very anti violence. So therefore, I do not think the FBI is going about this the right way, as I said, ulterior motives? But how are we going to get this simple message through, that if we are not muslim doesn't make us the enemy or the infidels.

reply to post by Pixie777

This I got from a muslim woman in the U.K. who says herself, that it should be banned, she's a journalist, she's written an article you can search for it, it is online.

Much of that sounded very familiar. I heard it quite recently on BBC. I found an older article, is this it?
Converting to Islam - the white Britons becoming Muslims
By Catrin Nye, 4 January 2011
The women quoted seem to be the same ones interviewed.

Having said all that, there are a few, that are not violent, but you need to understand, what's growing, is not those few . . . The true muslims, the non violent ones practice peace and love, the problem is there are very very few of them, and their numbers are dwindling.

I thought Islam was a non-hierarchical religion, no popes, or bishops, or priests. Shouldn't that lead to more individualism? more individual responsibility taking? That's what members on ATS have said. You even say "true Muslims are non-violent".

"Many people are looking for a spiritual and fulfilling lifestyle rather than the hedonistic, materially-driven one that we have around us," says Imam Masroor.

"They find an answer in Islam. Women are hard-wired to reflect and think and take things more seriously, even from a young age.

"This has been going on for the last 20 years and more so since 9/11. People are curious, so they go to the book rather than the distorted media headlines.

"They learn that Islam is fulfilling as a personal journey as well as a collective conscience."

Sarah Joseph sits in her office studying the latest edition of Emel, the Muslim lifestyle magazine she edits.
-- -- from BBC article

Could the success of organized efforts to radicalize be helped by known cases of government oppressive surveillance, infiltration and profiling? Don't these lead to resentment and paranoia? Just asking. I do need to do more research.

That video seems to be propaganda purportedly exposing propaganda. It's hard to take that very seriously.

reply to post by Pixie777


I advise that the only trustworthy message in that video you have shared here is from 5:39 seconds on......

You see, there is a significant way in which you and I agree; and although few, our disagreements are fundamental.

I dispute nothing on that video, but I do consider it more of the same tribal hatred that these two groups have been clinging to for ages.

Both are equally fixated on the war for the mind; that is a tenet of radicalism AND fascism. Frankly, I'm surprised I find myself repeating this; I had thought it had become commonly self-evident.

The conflict of the Middle East is not "rational" - it's TRIBAL. It always has been, and always will be, until they reject torturous pain and misery as a way of expressing their disapproval of each other. Each side clings to excuses to avoid the painfully easy solution which no group of humans seem capable of doing. Simply reject the notion that yesterday's spilled blood is relevant. That solution seems consistently out of reach....

I think the problem here is the idea that we are immune to the malady.... believe me, none of us seem to be.

As far as Islam is concerned. Honest research requires reading of the Koran. You can't determine what Christianity is by reading descriptions of Christians and their behavior... it is likewise with ANY culture; more so the theocratic ones. It is clear, from your sentiments above, that your research was provided for you. I suggest that you bypass the middleman and check it out yourself.

Consider this, just as the video we just watched; most of the research making it's rounds on the net and television is "produced." I am going to be presumptuous and add to my advice....

The more important the research, the more important it is to keep track of who is conveying the content; find out and acknowledge that every time. It does not invalidate the data; but patterns will emerge... you'll see.

You will find that productions rarely conform to academic standards. I suspect you will also discover that the story's are shameless in their uniform bias. While the speakers were careful (painfully so) to characterize their particular villains as "radical" Muslims... you [pejoratively speaking] seem to have heard only "Muslims." And therein lies my criticism.

By the way, Islam is not the only culture that displays this pattern of behavior, even today. Why is it that their particular behavior is more outrageous than the others? Look into Africa, Asia, South America... you will find it there too.

It is misplaced to condemn any particular culture for a problem it shares with the rest of the world.

I would have thought the FBI would know that. But then, I would have to have been drunk.

Originally posted by pthena
. The evidence I've heard first - hand is that GWB saw a live feed of both planes hitting. So some one with direct access to GW was able to have cameras in place beforehand, with all necessary channels open from NYC to Sarasota Florida and have the TV screen in front of his face to see both collisions in real time, live.

Which is why he was famously in a classroom with kids when someone had to tell him....right?

All those school teachers and kids weer part of the plot too - so they should obbviously be preosecuted for terrorism.....

Strewth - the lack of logical thinking here is just astounding - I wonder how some people are able to breathe?!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Off topic, I'm afraid. You didn't read "first-hand witness testimony"?

I used to think 9-11 was perpetrated by the USA government, but after watching some documentaries, I am of the opinion they simply let alqueda do its job so the USA government could have an exuse to attack iraq and afghanistan.

Muslims have a right to be pissed about american and european imperialism on their lands but the whole jewish conspiracy plot is absolute nonsense aka misplaced hate. They used to get shortchanged selling oil but the last decade that is history and the last 5 years especially it is they that are ripping us off at the pump.

There is no reason for religious extremism of any kind! Those that take religion seriously are victims of government and church propaganda to achieve dubious goals.

Originally posted by pthena

Having said all that, there are a few, that are not violent, but you need to understand, what's growing, is not those few . . . The true muslims, the non violent ones practice peace and love, the problem is there are very very few of them, and their numbers are dwindling.

I thought Islam was a non-hierarchical religion, no popes, or bishops, or priests. Shouldn't that lead to more individualism? more individual responsibility taking?

It has no hierachy you are right - but that doesn't give more "freedom" at all.

The koran is the last word of god, written by the most perfect man, in the perfect language, and cannot be argued with - so they are actually completely compelled to do what the koran says without question.

Of course it is as full of contradictions as all the otehr religious texts - but if there's sometrhing \in there that says "you msut do abc..." then any moslem can do "abc" and justify it as doing the word of god.

That's what members on ATS have said. You even say "true Muslims are non-violent".

Go look up the koran you'll find plenty of explicit calls to violence agaisnt non-believers - there are over 100 such verses by this count.

The idea that "true moslems are peace loving" is nonsense - Islam was founded in war, it expanded across the Mid-east and North Africa in war - war explicitly to conquer for the religon because that is what eth prophet did.

Now there have certainly been religious wars where x-ians have decided they have to spread their particular myth - but at least the bible doesn't actually explicitly tell them to go do so:

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

What's more "peaceful moslems" are explicitly said to be second class compared to those who fight:

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"

True moslems are peaceful?? Yeah....right!

reply to post by pthena


I'm afraid I did read it - and my comment is to ask if it were true how come he was, famously, in a classroom in Florida (IIRC) when he was supposed to be watching it on TV? I think your testimony is self-evidently rubbish.

if it is OT why did you mention it?

And Muslims who follow Sharia law say all people must become Muslims or die. Wow!!!!!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

how come he was, famously, in a classroom in Florida (IIRC) when he was supposed to be watching it on TV?

There is a youtube video of Bush himself saying he saw the plane hit while he was still in his car. (Plane one). First hand testimony from Bush.

Those minutes in the classroom with his eyes moving up and down. He was watching a screen which had been placed in the hallway specifically to see the second plane hit. The signal was routed through a local TV station. Some one else happened to see the same signal. (second first-hand testimony, which I find extremely credible) I'm not the witness, for further discussion go here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience

The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience, Discussed in a Conference between Truth and Peace
is a 1644 book about government force written by Roger Williams, the founder of the American colony of Rhode Island and the co-founder of the First Baptist Church in America. Using biblical reasoning, the book argues for a "wall of separation" between church and state and for state toleration of various Christian denominations, including Catholicism, and also "paganish, Jewish, Turkish or anti-Christian consciences and worships."[1] The book takes the form of a dialogue between Truth and Peace and is a response to correspondence by Boston minister, John Cotton, regarding Cotton's support for state enforcement of religious uniformity in Massachusetts.

This book was a philosophical source for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and several writings of Thomas Jefferson regarding religious freedom. You can imagine how offensive it was to those who think the state should impose religious uniformity. It was burned.

John Cotton wrote a refutation of Williams' book, called, The Bloudy Tenent, Washed, and Made White in the Bloud of the Lamb

Then, in 1654, Williams fired back with: The Bloody Tenent Yet More Bloudy by Mr. Cotton's Endeavour to Wash it White in the Blood of the Lamb; of Whose Precious Blood, Spilt in the Bloud of his Servants; and of the Blood of Millions Spilt in Former and Later Wars for Conscience Sake, That Most Bloody Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, upon, a Second Tryal Is Found More Apparently and More Notoriously Guilty, etc

That was two Christians discussing the suitability of states favoring certain expressions of faith over others.

In the U.S. it just isn't legal for government entities to decide that one form of religious expression is more suitable for Americans than another expression. Yet, that is what the FBI training is doing, specifically that chart. Every one has a right to not be subject to search, seizure, and scrutiny without some probable cause. Have we come to the point of national decay and dissolution (collapse) that a person's religion is probable cause?

I'm an American, therefore because of my American prejudices, I do not support any nation trampling on the human freedom of conscience that my particular deity has bestowed upon all humanity, whether that state is Wahabist Saudi Arabia or so-called Jewish State of Israel. But then, I'm an American, I grew up with these values.

Originally posted by pthena

FBI Teaches Agents: 'Mainstream' Muslims Are 'Violent, Radical'

www.wired.com

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.”

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.wired.com

I think the FBI have a point here. In fact I totally agree with them. Bar about 3 muslims I would say the rest are sympathetic to the cause of violence against non-believers and wish to harm societies that do not bend to their will.

Its about time all religions were deemed some form of terrorist act or threat to our nations. Religion and War go hand in hand and they have gotten away with it for hundred and hundreds of years.

Good for the FBI - its about time they get something right.

Originally posted by pthena
So devotion to religion is an indicator of likelyhood of violence?

If the theology of that religion advocates violence, then yes; it could well be.

I would recommend actually reading some of the linked pdfs; the quotes from the Qu'ran are given chapter and verse references. This might be useful for illustrating to you that the Qu'ran's directives to Muslims to engage in violence, are indeed real.

The material was provided by FBI whistleblowers to Danger Room because of concerns that the FBI's depiction of Islam as inseparable from violence is exactly what Al Qaeda teaches.

An ze Quran maghz ra bardastam.
Ustukhan pese sagan andakhtam-
‘The marrow from the Quran have I drawn,
And the dry bones unto the dogs have cast.’

Islam is not an exclusively negative or problematic religion; the Sufi tradition (such as the author Rumi) in particular is very positive, and not all of the Qu'ran itself is apparently warmongering, either. Problematic elements however, do genuinely exist; and they should be acknowledged, rather than falsely depicted as non-existent, by Westerners who seek to be politically correct.

I believe that there is a real drive on the part of at least a sizeable minority within Islam to conquer the entire planet, and I also believe that the Qu'ran and Hadith both genuinely command Muslims to do so. From an Islamic perspective, converting the entire world to Sharia, is simply being a good devotee.

reply to post by petrus4

I'm not sure what an irani (or is it pashto?) poem has to do with Islam...is that one of Al-Qaeda's subtitles or something? Because most muslim would probably consider it blasphemous to be talking about "tossing the dried bones" of the Quran to the dogs.

Having studied Islam, and specifically the Quran, I'd have to say I very much disagree with your assessment. Certainly, passages advocating violence exist in the Quran, but they are always preceded by exhortation to "fight those who fight you" or those who "persecute you and drive you from your homes" and "if they stop fighting, you have to stop" "if they offer a treaty, you accept it", etc. Again, certainly, after talking about these conditions and prerequisites, if that situation outlined is present, according to the Quran, fighting would be a "duty" of the muslim.

The Quran certainly does not command its followers to "conquer the world" in the name of sharia, in fact, it says the exact opposite: that if God had wanted the entire world to be muslim, he would have made it so, and what is man's place that he thinks he should countermand God?

Islam can certainly be twisted to advocate wanton violence, as can any other religion or set of beliefs. And people who want to commit violence, or see benefit in doing so, will always try to find a way.

I would say that a person can be a genuinely devoted muslim, and not wish to commit violence, or "conquer the world in the name of sharia", and such a situation is more common than uncommon. Thus, this news of the FBI is a bit troubling, and their methods are indeed a bit disingenuous.

reply to post by pthena


They are also teaching them that if a person believes in and supports the constitution or believe in sovereign citizenship, the 4th amendment, right to bear arms, and individual liberty, that person is "violent and radical" as well.

Bad times we are living in right now.

reply to post by petrus4

I'm glad that babloyi has responded. It wouldn't be quite proper for a Pagan such as myself to be "defender of the faith".

Originally posted by babloyi
Certainly, passages advocating violence exist in the Quran, but they are always preceded by exhortation to "fight those who fight you" or those who "persecute you and drive you from your homes" and "if they stop fighting, you have to stop" "if they offer a treaty, you accept it", etc. Again, certainly, after talking about these conditions and prerequisites, if that situation outlined is present, according to the Quran, fighting would be a "duty" of the muslim.

The Quran certainly does not command its followers to "conquer the world" in the name of sharia, in fact, it says the exact opposite: that if God had wanted the entire world to be muslim, he would have made it so, and what is man's place that he thinks he should countermand God?

post by petrus4
I would recommend actually reading some of the linked pdfs; the quotes from the Qu'ran are given chapter and verse references. This might be useful for illustrating to you that the Qu'ran's directives to Muslims to engage in violence, are indeed real.

I've read the whole Qur'an at least once, with the intent of discovering what Jihad actually was. I don't feel compelled to look at isolated verses, taken out of context. I agree completely with babloyi's statements which I quoted above.

Having said that; I go on to say: I find the concept and model of Jihad of astronomically more value to the individual and humanity as a whole as compared to the model of permanent standing army available to fight at the whim of a commander in chief or congress heavily influenced by special interest lobbies.

I say this as an eight year veteran of the US military who has engaged in acts of war in a classified mission by direct orders of a US President. I had no personal conviction that the mission was worthy or of any use to protecting individual life or liberty for any one, but rather an exercise in demonstrating only military superiority over another nation.

The Jihad model is all about individual conscientious decision to go to the defense of people being oppressed, killed, and dispossessed of land and property. The contrast is stark if you understand it.

There is no difference between Jihad and actions depicted in such popular movies as Flyboys 2006, starring James Franco, depicting individual Americans joining up with the Lafayette Escadrille in defense of France during WWI, even though the U.S. chose to remain neutral. Or Legends of the Fall,1994, starring Brad Pitt, wherein Samuel out of a sense of duty joins the Canadian Expeditionary Force, in aid of Britain in the fight against Germany, again with US remaining neutral.

It's all about personal conscientious decision as apposed to following orders from a central authority. Does this strike fear in central authority? Indeed it does. Central authority responds by propagandizing people to fear. The object of fear is optional and shifts with shifting circumstances.

To demonstrate the perversity of American norm, I will make 2 statements. Think for yourself how you have been conditioned to react, which is socially acceptable for an American and which of these statements will mark me for FBI scrutiny.

1) "Oh, that's it, we should go over there and bomb them into the stone age, kill them all"

2) "That's not right. I will go on Jihad in defense of these people."

Notice "we should" which usually translates to "my military should, while I stay home."

Notice "I will" which translates to "I will"

Which of the two is honorable? Which is cowardly? Which gets your name on a list?

reply to post by Nucleardiver

They are also teaching them that if a person believes in and supports the constitution or believe in sovereign citizenship, the 4th amendment, right to bear arms, and individual liberty, that person is "violent and radical" as well.

Yep, welcome to the Jihad! See my explanation of jihad in post above this.

Update: FBI Stops using that material

Facing Outcry, FBI Shelves Seminar on How Violent Muslims Are

FBI halts training that labels Islam as violent - The Independent
An FBI spokesman, Christopher Allen, said that following the outcry about the lecture, policy changes had been made to ensure that all training was consistent with FBI standards.

Looks like they couldn't justify the claims made by material once it was exposed. Too bad whistleblowers aren't really protected under current US policy, regardless of Obama's claims to protect whistleblowers while he was running for office.