Part 1 of Dr. Kundnani's presentation is here>>
"The Muslims Are Coming: Islamophobia, Extremism and the Domestic War on Terror" by Dr. Arun Kundnani .
Kundnani has a theory that must rise above historical misunderstandings of Islam. He insists: The War on Terror is NOT about Islam. It is all about POLITICS, the FBI and government entrapment.
Whether the question was in agreement with him or not (though most seemed to support him) Kundnani predictably brought his answer back to his meme: The War on Terror is NOT about Islam. It's about POLITICS; the FBI; entrapment.
Part Two : The Q and A - with a partial transcription for 14 questions and answers. There were occasional spots where I couldn't catch a word or phrase. I have indicated this with (??...??)
Q and A BEGINS: Man asks - #1- re Entrapment Defense used by the terrorists has not been successful... through the justice department...
Answer - Kundnani: The way the entrapment defense is supposed to work, you begin saying the actions that you are accused of would not have occurred were it not for the government's intervention. you, also, have to prove you did not have a predisposition to commit those acts BEFORE the government intervened. So far, No ONE has successfully won an entrapment defense in any of these Federal Terrorist related cases, BECAUSE it is very hard for the defendants to say they did NOT have a 'predisposition'. That's because the Prosecution brings a (so-called) Terrorism EXPERT in to the court who says that because this guy visited these web sites, expressed these opinions, that constitutes a predisposition to be a terrorist. What are those websites and the opinions expressed? Often, radical criticism to U.S. foreign policy OR expressions of belief that should be protected by the First Amendment (of the Constitution). The courts, the system, does not supply sufficient protection from that kind of abuse (of the First Amendment) from taking place.
Kundnani uses this moment to refer to Abdullah -Alim and his arrest for Gun possession. [46:29] Pointing out that THIS is NOT considered a TERRORISM related case. He doesn't get to make his entrapment argument at all. The jury hears nothing about the FBI. Straight court-case. Guy stopped on street. Possession of a gun.
Kundnani CLAIMS this to be a sufficient protection from that kind of abuse (of the First Amendment) from taking place.
Kundnani uses this moment to refer to Abdullah -Alim and his arrest for Gun possession. [46:29] Pointing out that THIS is NOT considered a TERRORISM related case. He doesn't get to make his entrapment argument at all. The jury hears nothing about the FBI. Straight court-case. Guy stopped on street. Possession of a gun.
Kundnani CLAIMS this to be a situation where THE COURTS are NOT providing PROTECTION to people who are being abused (so he claims) in this way (by the FBI)
Question # 2 - Is more about suggestion how potential informants might protect themselves BEFORE they agree to be an informant, This guy suggests that you PUBLISH in a magazine (for about $20) that the FBI approached you [47:15]
Kundnani replies: He thinks this is beyond most peoples means. That it seems a bit dramatic. Mosques are aware that they are targets for the FBI. So sadly, they are no longer welcoming to strangers who wish to join the mosque. They are suspicious of potential new members. VERY suspicious of anyone who talks Radical Talk while trying to bring about an entrapment. Mosques are now reporting that they have someone in he congregation who's talking in an angry, radical way.
He mentions the immigration status of many of these potential informants, who are here ILLEGALLY. Vulnerable to being removed if they find themselves on the wrong end of the Federal Government. People are aware that the FBI can use its powers to TARGET you, it takes a little bit of courage to publish that the FBI is approaching you (for entrapment). He says Abdullah-Alim HAD that courage and he's now spending 16 years in prison.
Kundnani says the more we can talk about these issues, the more we can overcome the fear and the isolation. To think about strategies.
Kundnani feels it is not possible to be as straight forward as Questioner # 2 was suggesting.[51:34]
Question # 3 [man with accented English] Clearly he agrees with Kundnani's presentation by how he phrases his statement/question. He states 'What's new here?" He refers to government tactics targeting potentially radical groups. He mentions England where two years ago, he says, the government proposed to criminalize 'free speech', not just for radicalized groups but, for university.
Question (finally). "Is the biggest threat coming from the government or from the criminalization of being anti-Islamic . The minds seem to be already 'colonized' by all that rhetoric that happen in U.S. That happen in Europe. Isn't it better (??) the police tactics from the government?"
Answer from Kundnani [53:22] (Not sure HOW this answer came out of that question above ) He says that is what he covers in his book.The history of the FBI- 1940's- Claiming that what's different now from the FBI's abuses under Hoover. Hoover had a program in the late 1950's to criminalize the LEFT and to criminalize the Civil Rights Movement.
Kundnani says it was UNDERSTOOD at the time, by Hoover and the people that exposed it, as unauthorized criminal activity by the FBI. That's why it had to be secret.
Exposed in the early 1970's, recognizing that this secret program was against the Constitution; against the law. With 1990's legislation in the U.S. the government can now do the same stuff lawfully. Some one can now be convicted not for something they are doing, but for expressing opinions.
Kundnani also says that to write this book, he had access to material that's not public, but THIS is Open Secrets. " If you publish an article that says something positive about a terrorist organization, you are effectively providing resources. material support to that organization." Twenty years ago we'd have understood that activity as First Amendment protected.
Re Change: He feels this is about how we THINK about theses issues in society. We're not going to bring about change by changing government policies here or by changing how we do counter-terrorism policy coming out of Washington.
What we NEED is a more FUNDAMENTAL change in how we question violence in society. How we THINK about Muslims.
Are we able to recognize Muslims as fellow citizens when they express opinions that we disagree with and not seen as extremism, but seen as just someone else expressing an opinion from us.
That's the KEY test.
Next Kundnani refers to the questioner's mentioning of pieces of legislation in Europe that target, not radicals, but what we consider to be radicalization is somewhat nebulous and vague.
Looking at how we use the word extremism in the United States, in relation to Muslims, we don't use that term just for people who advocate violence, we use it in a much wider way-to talk about people's choice in clothing. [58:21]
QUESTION #4 - a woman-"Going back to the recent beheadings, now you did say that you were compare the United Kingdom and the U.S. in regard to these kind of practices so I was just 'looking' at that. And, also, other than interviewing people who were in the FBI, have you in anyway been involved with the FBI-type work in your career?
Kundnani asks her to clarify what she is asking. (he euphemistically responds) That there seems to be more people coming from Britain involved in that "kind of activity"? Syria- UK - [she mentions the radicalization being worse in UK.] He continues, that for about a decade now the story, the impression, is that there is a bigger problem in the UK compared to the US. (He does not agree)
He claims it's very hard to reach that conclusion based on the actual statistics.
This is Kundnani's answer (of sorts)'He thinks it's about the same. Many from UK have gone to Syria (he says) for Humanitarian reasons, medical/nursing, in opposition to the Assad regime. Some join groups supported by US, some have joined ISIS.
NOW he starts talking about the son of a man who is between held in a downtown New York prison [1:02] The Metropolitan Correctional Center on Park Street. A Federal Building where we hold people accused of terrorism (Pre-trial) He's Egyptian.
Egyptian Security services have wanted him for a long time. He was in prison in Britain for about 10 years without being convicted of a crime, extradited to the U.S. The son has grown up with his father in prison, the victim of a great miscarriage of justice. (HOW does this answer her question about beheadings? Seems he's just making sure to keep his talking points on-the-floor)
QUESTION # 5 (a woman) [1:03] The questions started to get bit more demanding. (Accented English. Hard to understand) re "God of Islam" and madrassas.
Kundnani explains this is not his field- She is slightly argumentative- He responds this is what would be solved by the so-called terrorism experts. Another woman is saying that she asked, what does it mean. Lots of chatter happening at the same time. (He tries to answer the question that is apparently about the madrassa and a phrase that is about the 'House of Islam". About how to define the world(the woman keeps talking over him)
He tries to respond again:"These are kind of emotional issues I get once in awhile [1:05;30] I understand we have strong feelings, but...again...this mythology we're being told that somehow that THEY (she interrupts him again) He responds, "You have to let me try to answer your question." (she KEEPS talking over him)
He tries again, "We can talk about this ONE ideology called Islam. That everyone follows in the same way. This kind of monolith. Then we are told that these are the kind of beliefs that everyone in this monolith believes. Then you get the version where there are moderates on the one hand and there's extremists -- (and she INTERRUPTS HIM AGAIN) But, he continues --"...eventually we come to the same point, talking percentages. How many are extremists. THIS is the mythology we're being sold." [1:07;15] (He insists) This is not HOW people turn into terrorists .... because of religious text. There is absolutely NO evidence for that.
You've been TOLD that because it's a NICE story to explain to you WHY we're involved in this thing called the "War on Terror". The REAL reason: It's ALL about POLITICS and NOT religious Ideology. (she is still chattering in the background as the audience APPLAUDS him)[1:07;40]
Question #6 (a woman - Devils Advocate) WHY are you blaming the victims? (9-11) We're not blaming ALL Muslims but, what happened to the Moderate Muslims who need to put their best foot forward and recognize that they do have a certain amount of extremism. (She then mentions the American Japanese in WW 2 who were interred.)
They were not responsible for the actions of Japan but, because they were so vilified (she says) the internment was so we could protect them. We don't want to see Civil War in our streets the way ISIS is doing it. All we want - WHY are WE the VICTIMS not allowed to have the FBI to protect me...her? WHY are YOU right and I'm wrong?[1:08;55]
Kundnani tries to respond (she keeps talking in the background) First, you said I'm blaming the victims of 9-11. Kundnani insists he is NOT blaming the victims. He says our governments approach to counter-terrorism is misguided. We need to be consistent in our morality here.
If we're going to condemn 9-11, we also need to condemn the actions of our OWN government when IT kills civilians. If we want to talk about morality, THAT'S moral consistency.
When our own government carries out violence, which could be domestically, we have to condemn that as passionately as we condemn the violence of 9-11. That's the ONLY way we can condemn 9-11 without HYPOCRISY. (the room becomes a MESS of cross-talking)
(Rising above the vocal mess) He makes the point that the internment of the American Japanese (put in camps to "PROTECT" them) was one of the most Civil Rights (....?) that the US government has done in the last century [1:11;44] (She continues to argue with him and to babble-on til the next question)
Question #7 (a woman) [1:12;09] She feels he would have a much better argument if he said that the vast majority of Muslims are not radicalized, they don't follow these teachings. But, when you say Islamic teachings never have anything to do with this, quite frankly it's not believable.
NY Times had an interview, head of Pakistani madrassa system said that the "most important thing for his madrassa students to realize was that the destruction of the West is really the most important thing in Islam." You can say that he is misinterpreting Islam, but I'm sure he believes that the madrassa system is (...?) Islam for him.
He has a PHD in Islamic Theology. He is exterminating Yizidis and Christians; selling them in to slavery. He is NOT doing that because he is reacting to the actions of the United States. So, I would ask, it's just not credible to say that Islam never had anything to do with this.
Yes, the West has done wrong-things, but it's not credible, in my opinion. I'd like to know how you respond to that. (there is a smattering of applause)
Kundnani jumps right back to his meme, not wavering one little bit: Islamic theology is NOT the CAUSE of Terrorism [1:13;26] He says she's kind of objecting to something he's not exactly saying.
He takes a broader point with two talking points:
"This still leaves you," he says, "with this flawed assumption that ideology causes Political Violence and Terrorism.
Ideology does NOT cause political violence and terrorism.
One does not become a terrorist because he read an Islamist extremist texts. That's never happened. Someone watches videos, becomes propagandized, becomes a terrorist. Never happened.
Kundnani gives one example of a woman in London, Choudhury, who is the closet example (he says) that it happened. That's IT.
The others:
It's Mental Health problems.
Looking for a Sense of Adventure.
OR Political Injustices.
THAT'S what the data tells you.
He says it's very hard to be objective about this right now. [1:16;09] And THEN he claims that " the place where you go for OBJECTIVE knowledge is University. It should be. That's what university is meant to do."
So-called Terrorism Studies Departments, which have been founded by Federal Government after 9-11 with HUGE sums of money for a PARTICULAR agenda (!) There's a revolving door between these particular departments. The FBI. The CIA. Various aspects of the National Security system. It's NOT genuinely independent place.
SO, we have to start to create opportunities for a much more NUANCED, more ACCURATE account of what causes terrorism.
Instead of talking about radicalism, we need to be talking about the political cause (as well as) the way religious language is used, ways of expressing propaganda.
QUESTION #8- A man [1:17;18] He must be a supporter. He begins with 'Thank you. Thank you for everything.' This is all about Obama. He voted for him (twice) He asks, "What is his role, in your theories about what's going on..."
Kundnani's response: Says he likes the question, because you would think that Obama would be pretty good on the issues.
He jumps to Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the 'so-called' under-wear bomber ( TSM: He was held at a Michigan federal prison and tried in a civilian court in Detroit, not a military tribunal , a controversy at the time.)
[1:18;36] Kundnani says, "After that incident, the way the media and the debate plays-out after-the-fact actually set (??) the Obama administration. He'd just been in office a few weeks."
The conclusion: 'They' (the Obama administration) decide that this 'issue' of terrorism has the potential to destroy any (?....) debate; to undermine (??) [1:18;57]THEY decide this can't happen again, to have an issue spiral out-of-control and make it seem to the American people that WE'RE not tough on Terrorism.
Obama does two things(domestically). He gives the FBI Free-Hand. All kinds of Civil Rights and Muslim Community organizations are constantly turning up, saying we have the issues about civil rights not getting any play.
Internationally his strategy is, "We will try to close down Guantanamo"[1:19;38] Kundnani continues, "Which, of course, is the right thing to do." We're going to END torture.
In fact, we STILL out-source people who need to be tortured. We don't do it ourselves any more. We're going to try to bring those kinds of processes within the judicial system so we can (do it) with some sort of legal veneer.[1:20;04].
Then, still referring to Obama's policies, he mentions drone-strikes as the (preferred?) kind of killer-act for counter-terrorism. We don't need to do something like the Iraq War again. We don't need to do interrogations (we've done so many now), we can just do extra--judicial killing. SO, he says, the ASSUMPTION was that the drone-strikes were THE solution.
He then mentions that Obama's War on Terror Strategy is centered around his weekly Tuesday morning meetings. (Does he attend these/DID he? ) The War on Terror strategy meetings, where the list of potential drone targets keeps growing and growing and with the advise coming from his National Security advisers.
But, Kundnani says, the drone-strikes aren't really 'doing it'. It just manufactures more people who were involved in violence. It seemed to be a quick-fix solution. But, it turned out to be worse. [1:21;28] Kundnani continues, "We keep looking for these quick-Fix solutions, which involve inflicting violence on other people"
(A woman mentions Bin Laden) Kundnani he responds: It seems like we are making progress on the War on Terror. Yet, we have another round of (.....) which resembles what we were getting in 2003.
The evening Bin-Laden was killed- Peter Berg CNN's Terrorism (guy) [1:22;10] said THIS is the END of the War on Terror (2011) It's a decade. We're DONE. (If only, says Kundnani) But, next morning, Hillary Clinton steps up and says the War on Terror continues. Lunch Time, the next day, Berg (back tracks). He is back on and says, the War on Terror is NOT over.
Kundnani says, the government did not use this opportunity to draw a line and think about these issues in a NEW way. They made a strategic error by saying "more of the same' and the message from CNN becomes just a sort of 'mouth-piece' for the government.
(Finishing his response to the woman) Yes, we 'got them out', but it doesn't feel like actually representing a 'kind-of' progress in retrospect now (The woman speaks, saying , "If we had not, we don't know what it would be like now) Kundnani feels it would be pretty much the same place.[1:23;45]
QUESTION #9 A man - [1:23;53]"Thank you for a very interesting presentation. (his question) Even if your more 'nuanced' approach is the better one, once any massive terrorist attack occurs, wouldn't any administration in power at the time be blamed for letting it happen."
Kundnani's response: Yes. (the man interrupts- every administration is afraid ) Yes, but, if you don't have a serious attack, no one's going to give you any credit for it. Now, any president, is just thinking about SELF-interest (wow - what a broad statement of 'fact': any and ALL presidents?) and that, he says, would a a TOUGH approach.
[1:25;30] He feels public opinion in the Fight Against Terrorism should we trade Civil Liberties for (greater ?) Powers for the Government. Ten years later (after people said 'yes') now people are saying, we should Keep our Civil Liberties.
It's not just about the incident of a Terrorist attack, it's about how we communicate about that terrorist attack in the aftermath. For example, the Boston Marathon bombing. It didn't produce any really significant changes in counter terrorism ( ...?) The reason: We'd been told for decades to expect something like that, if not worse. And when it hap pened, people were outraged, but they weren't surprised or shocked. It didn't generate the same kind of dynamic as the Post 9-11. (man interjects) But very few people were really killed. And you had thousands (Kundnani interrupts him) But, terrorism is about terror, not just about the number of people killed so ... look at the beheadings videos, where again, the number of people being killed is not the same as 9-11, but it's generated a whole lot of fear... in the United States... The man says, "But, people were killed---" Kundnani takes the next question.
Question #10 - a woman (accented English-Chinese) [1:27;08] This is just my observation. I agree with you. You do something wrong... you the minority must justify... The strategy...to wipe out the rich people. The so-called rich people. Or the intellectuals. I don't follow you very well, I feel like there is similarity. When I grew up in China. I didn't feel brain-washed. I was not active in politics. But, since I came to America, I find, I feel like brainwashing is universal. Not just in China. Right now we have so much brainwash. In America. I feel there is so much misunderstanding.
Your presentation, I think there is some truth, it's not about... it's like the Chinese Falun Gong. Americans have convince themselves we're a religion, we're not politics. Its totally politics. The Chinese, you have to understand the culture and I know Chinese culture so well, to know that Falun Gong is not a religion, it's politics. So I really appreciate your point. (healthy applause)
Kundnani's response [1:29;20] Thank you. All I can say is, an ideology is most affective when you don't realize it's an ideology. So in a society like the Soviet Union, or China, it's obvious that it's the State propaganda. We're not a Totalitarian Society which makes the ideologies we (Americans? The West?) have less obvious. In a way, it makes them all the more pernicious. An interesting comparison. Thank you.
Question #11- a Muslim man [1:29;55]I'm a Muslim and my family has been Muslim since the Time of the Prophets. (lots that he said was garbled) I'm a Muslim. But, I am Arabic. So, my experience with Western Foreign Policy is quite different from a Muslim who is Palestinian. A Muslim who is Pakistani. He mentions Sharia. [1:30;31] (He is difficult to understand)[1:30;51] He says we have to understand Muslim Community. State Religion. Every major (..?) is in Arabic. Our Religious beliefs are the same. Our Cultures are quite different. (hard to understand again) To combat Terrorism we have to go back to his culture, hi people who are committing this act. Ask WHY. Being Muslims (..?) (applause)
Kundnani [1:31;50] Thank you. The way you are talking about culture there, has some problems for me. "It's not the religion that cause the violence, but it's the CULTURE." (the man interjects) It's your cultural 'experience'. Perhaps I can be a bit more precise about it. (but he isn't) If you're talking about POLITICAL context where you have bombings....for me I'd describe that as a POLITICAL experience, NOT a Cultural Experience.
The reason I make that distinction... in order to defend against prejudice against Islam we create NEW prejudices against particular ethnic groups. We say Arabs because of their Cultural History become terrorists. Kundnani says he is personally uncomfortable with the idea that we would be saying they became terrorists because of their ethnicity (examples: Pakistanis or West Africans)
He ends with an obscure conclusion---When talking about different POLITICAL differences, you're absolutely right the political experience is hugely different. Different scenarios.
Question #12 - a man- [1:33;38] Thanks for speaking and putting up with us for so long. You've been talking about how a person's political context and their political experience can lead them to make a certain set of decisions. In the context of Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda, as far as my knowledge of their history goes, the kind of justification for the actions he had stemmed originally from the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. And I guess you can keep going back and forth with the U.S. military reacted this to this thing because another group did this thing... and you can get back to the 60's and Said Qu'tab and all these people...and you go back and forth...
So, how to you, kind of, make the distinctions that you are making that would stop the discussion from devolving into "He Said this/She Said this" or this came first... I think some of the comments that were happening earlier in this discussion: The FBI does this thing because Muslims or Arabs (whatever) have done this thing, but the counter-argument might go: The Arabs are acting this way because the U.S. government does this thing. And it could just go on and on forever.
Kundnani responds [1:34;49] (had difficulty transcribing some of this response) Right. And that's the cycle we're in. That's my whole point. We're doing this to you because you did this to us earlier. That's precisely the cycle we need to break. I would hope that (the society?) in the United States will be much better at breaking that cycle than our enemies. We should be the reasonable ones with a strategy to break that cycle, much more effectively.
There's always going to be the Bin Ladens who have an ideology that they use to legitimize their violence. (Their God? [1:35;36] Did he say that?) But, what we can do is to intervene to actually make their benevolent support for those people much reduced. (that's about change...?)
Right now, for me, thinking about the situation with ISIS, we need to radically rethink our whole alliance with Saudi Arabia. Probably Turkey as well. Thinking along those lines is the key to breaking these cycles.
We've turned a blind-eye to Saudi Arabia and the official and semi-official funding that it provides for armed groups in the Middle East; for decades. We have assumed that we NEED Saudi Arabia to be our 'friends' , to supply cheap oil into our economy and to keep buying our weapons. The REALITY is we DON'T need to do that.
We actually get most of our oil from Canada so we can radically change our whole relationship with Saudi Arabia and as a result see that horribly unDemocratic regime over thrown once we withdraw our support (...??)
[1:36;53] Right now the people who are most affected by the United States are the Kurds. (... ) We're never going to allow them to do very much because we have to hold on to Turkey as our ally.
We don't want the Kurds to become more influential in the region. (...) If we're serious, the United States, we should be doing something very different in terms of our relationship with Turkey. (...) ...our political thinking around the whole foreign policy towards the region... in a situation where we have genuine grass-roots movements in the Middle East OR real democratic societies where the people in the region get to shape the direction their societies take...That's the best way to prevent Terrorism in the end.
[1:38;08] How do we get there? We stop (...?) regimes in the region. Which no one talks about. Why don't we do that ... We don't want a genuine democracy in Egypt. If that happened, then the Egyptian people might choose not to be an ally of the United States anymore. These kind of questions (...?) how do we break that cycle and create a more peaceful Middle East.
Question #13- a man (1:38;55) What is your take on the Assad regime. Why it is that we did absolutely nothing to fight ISIS, even though ISIS destroyed four Divisions of Iraqi Troops ( ...) Why we did nothing to rid this country (of ISIS)
Kundnani's Response [1:39;28] Yes, the Syrian Regime. Mass Human Rights Abuses the last few years, and going back much further to his father, killing whole civilian populations an entire towns. I would be delighted to see that regime over-thrown. He feels the end of that regime will be part of how we bring about the end of ISIS. [1:40;02]
The reason the regime ... [noise on mic for about 40 seconds as I prepare to leave. Obscuring words] (sorry) The regime, how stupid ?... the perception that ISIS is the ONLY problem in Syria. The regime would be much 'happier' believing, convincing the world that he's involved in a conflict (where he's faced with this ??... ISIS... rather thinking these groups that are involved with ...? Syrian regime. (?....?) [1:40;42]
From VSB: As I finish transcribing the Q and A, there has been ANOTHER ISIS BEHEADING. Sunday, November 16, 2014. "Abdul-Rahman" Kassig aka Peter Kassig. He converted ('reverted') to Islam. It didn’t save him. He had fought in Iraq in the U.S. military, and so for the Islamic State he was a “Crusader” and had to die. His gruesome murder is part of a 16 minute video sent to the Social Networks. Kassig was murdered as part of a MASS beheading that included about a dozen Syrian soldiers.
Continuing with Kundnani's comments regarding Syria and ISIS. " So,that's why the Assad Regime has been buying oil ISIS ...? To the extent that ... strategy...2003...don't wind up with...in some way the hypocrisy of the last two years... Assad regime in the one hand.... on the other hand, the opposition... ? [wish I had gotten this statement.... I had now left the room and had mic noise interference-again)
Question #14 - man- (I was in the hallway) - Began by thanking Kundnani for giving people this platform; to sit down and listen to you. "I'm a Muslim, a convert to Islam (8 years back) I'm from India. My parents are still Hindu.."
END audio [1:42;19;00]
++
The Q and A was still going on after an hour. I quickly took a couple of cell-phone pics as I left the room. This is the best angle I could get of the clean-cut, 'NYPL Dr.Kundnani' vs the academic radical I found on-line.
Later, I found pictures of a completely different 'look' from Dr. Kundnani
Seems this is his 'rebel' Kundnani, speaking to the Muslim student orgs.
Since beheadings are IN THE NEWS. I wold love to see Dr. Kundnani encourage a dialogue that would focus on this question:
"Is it 'Islamophobic' to oppose 'beheadings?"
++
"The Muslims Are Coming: Islamophobia, Extremism and the Domestic War on Terror" by Dr. Arun Kundnani .
Kundnani has a theory that must rise above historical misunderstandings of Islam. He insists: The War on Terror is NOT about Islam. It is all about POLITICS, the FBI and government entrapment.
Whether the question was in agreement with him or not (though most seemed to support him) Kundnani predictably brought his answer back to his meme: The War on Terror is NOT about Islam. It's about POLITICS; the FBI; entrapment.
Part Two : The Q and A - with a partial transcription for 14 questions and answers. There were occasional spots where I couldn't catch a word or phrase. I have indicated this with (??...??)
Q and A BEGINS: Man asks - #1- re Entrapment Defense used by the terrorists has not been successful... through the justice department...
Answer - Kundnani: The way the entrapment defense is supposed to work, you begin saying the actions that you are accused of would not have occurred were it not for the government's intervention. you, also, have to prove you did not have a predisposition to commit those acts BEFORE the government intervened. So far, No ONE has successfully won an entrapment defense in any of these Federal Terrorist related cases, BECAUSE it is very hard for the defendants to say they did NOT have a 'predisposition'. That's because the Prosecution brings a (so-called) Terrorism EXPERT in to the court who says that because this guy visited these web sites, expressed these opinions, that constitutes a predisposition to be a terrorist. What are those websites and the opinions expressed? Often, radical criticism to U.S. foreign policy OR expressions of belief that should be protected by the First Amendment (of the Constitution). The courts, the system, does not supply sufficient protection from that kind of abuse (of the First Amendment) from taking place.
Kundnani uses this moment to refer to Abdullah -Alim and his arrest for Gun possession. [46:29] Pointing out that THIS is NOT considered a TERRORISM related case. He doesn't get to make his entrapment argument at all. The jury hears nothing about the FBI. Straight court-case. Guy stopped on street. Possession of a gun.
Kundnani CLAIMS this to be a sufficient protection from that kind of abuse (of the First Amendment) from taking place.
Kundnani uses this moment to refer to Abdullah -Alim and his arrest for Gun possession. [46:29] Pointing out that THIS is NOT considered a TERRORISM related case. He doesn't get to make his entrapment argument at all. The jury hears nothing about the FBI. Straight court-case. Guy stopped on street. Possession of a gun.
Kundnani CLAIMS this to be a situation where THE COURTS are NOT providing PROTECTION to people who are being abused (so he claims) in this way (by the FBI)
Question # 2 - Is more about suggestion how potential informants might protect themselves BEFORE they agree to be an informant, This guy suggests that you PUBLISH in a magazine (for about $20) that the FBI approached you [47:15]
Kundnani replies: He thinks this is beyond most peoples means. That it seems a bit dramatic. Mosques are aware that they are targets for the FBI. So sadly, they are no longer welcoming to strangers who wish to join the mosque. They are suspicious of potential new members. VERY suspicious of anyone who talks Radical Talk while trying to bring about an entrapment. Mosques are now reporting that they have someone in he congregation who's talking in an angry, radical way.
He mentions the immigration status of many of these potential informants, who are here ILLEGALLY. Vulnerable to being removed if they find themselves on the wrong end of the Federal Government. People are aware that the FBI can use its powers to TARGET you, it takes a little bit of courage to publish that the FBI is approaching you (for entrapment). He says Abdullah-Alim HAD that courage and he's now spending 16 years in prison.
Kundnani says the more we can talk about these issues, the more we can overcome the fear and the isolation. To think about strategies.
Kundnani feels it is not possible to be as straight forward as Questioner # 2 was suggesting.[51:34]
Question # 3 [man with accented English] Clearly he agrees with Kundnani's presentation by how he phrases his statement/question. He states 'What's new here?" He refers to government tactics targeting potentially radical groups. He mentions England where two years ago, he says, the government proposed to criminalize 'free speech', not just for radicalized groups but, for university.
Question (finally). "Is the biggest threat coming from the government or from the criminalization of being anti-Islamic . The minds seem to be already 'colonized' by all that rhetoric that happen in U.S. That happen in Europe. Isn't it better (??) the police tactics from the government?"
Answer from Kundnani [53:22] (Not sure HOW this answer came out of that question above ) He says that is what he covers in his book.The history of the FBI- 1940's- Claiming that what's different now from the FBI's abuses under Hoover. Hoover had a program in the late 1950's to criminalize the LEFT and to criminalize the Civil Rights Movement.
Kundnani says it was UNDERSTOOD at the time, by Hoover and the people that exposed it, as unauthorized criminal activity by the FBI. That's why it had to be secret.
Exposed in the early 1970's, recognizing that this secret program was against the Constitution; against the law. With 1990's legislation in the U.S. the government can now do the same stuff lawfully. Some one can now be convicted not for something they are doing, but for expressing opinions.
Kundnani also says that to write this book, he had access to material that's not public, but THIS is Open Secrets. " If you publish an article that says something positive about a terrorist organization, you are effectively providing resources. material support to that organization." Twenty years ago we'd have understood that activity as First Amendment protected.
Re Change: He feels this is about how we THINK about theses issues in society. We're not going to bring about change by changing government policies here or by changing how we do counter-terrorism policy coming out of Washington.
What we NEED is a more FUNDAMENTAL change in how we question violence in society. How we THINK about Muslims.
Are we able to recognize Muslims as fellow citizens when they express opinions that we disagree with and not seen as extremism, but seen as just someone else expressing an opinion from us.
That's the KEY test.
Next Kundnani refers to the questioner's mentioning of pieces of legislation in Europe that target, not radicals, but what we consider to be radicalization is somewhat nebulous and vague.
Looking at how we use the word extremism in the United States, in relation to Muslims, we don't use that term just for people who advocate violence, we use it in a much wider way-to talk about people's choice in clothing. [58:21]
QUESTION #4 - a woman-"Going back to the recent beheadings, now you did say that you were compare the United Kingdom and the U.S. in regard to these kind of practices so I was just 'looking' at that. And, also, other than interviewing people who were in the FBI, have you in anyway been involved with the FBI-type work in your career?
Kundnani asks her to clarify what she is asking. (he euphemistically responds) That there seems to be more people coming from Britain involved in that "kind of activity"? Syria- UK - [she mentions the radicalization being worse in UK.] He continues, that for about a decade now the story, the impression, is that there is a bigger problem in the UK compared to the US. (He does not agree)
He claims it's very hard to reach that conclusion based on the actual statistics.
This is Kundnani's answer (of sorts)'He thinks it's about the same. Many from UK have gone to Syria (he says) for Humanitarian reasons, medical/nursing, in opposition to the Assad regime. Some join groups supported by US, some have joined ISIS.
NOW he starts talking about the son of a man who is between held in a downtown New York prison [1:02] The Metropolitan Correctional Center on Park Street. A Federal Building where we hold people accused of terrorism (Pre-trial) He's Egyptian.
Egyptian Security services have wanted him for a long time. He was in prison in Britain for about 10 years without being convicted of a crime, extradited to the U.S. The son has grown up with his father in prison, the victim of a great miscarriage of justice. (HOW does this answer her question about beheadings? Seems he's just making sure to keep his talking points on-the-floor)
QUESTION # 5 (a woman) [1:03] The questions started to get bit more demanding. (Accented English. Hard to understand) re "God of Islam" and madrassas.
Kundnani explains this is not his field- She is slightly argumentative- He responds this is what would be solved by the so-called terrorism experts. Another woman is saying that she asked, what does it mean. Lots of chatter happening at the same time. (He tries to answer the question that is apparently about the madrassa and a phrase that is about the 'House of Islam". About how to define the world(the woman keeps talking over him)
He tries to respond again:"These are kind of emotional issues I get once in awhile [1:05;30] I understand we have strong feelings, but...again...this mythology we're being told that somehow that THEY (she interrupts him again) He responds, "You have to let me try to answer your question." (she KEEPS talking over him)
He tries again, "We can talk about this ONE ideology called Islam. That everyone follows in the same way. This kind of monolith. Then we are told that these are the kind of beliefs that everyone in this monolith believes. Then you get the version where there are moderates on the one hand and there's extremists -- (and she INTERRUPTS HIM AGAIN) But, he continues --"...eventually we come to the same point, talking percentages. How many are extremists. THIS is the mythology we're being sold." [1:07;15] (He insists) This is not HOW people turn into terrorists .... because of religious text. There is absolutely NO evidence for that.
You've been TOLD that because it's a NICE story to explain to you WHY we're involved in this thing called the "War on Terror". The REAL reason: It's ALL about POLITICS and NOT religious Ideology. (she is still chattering in the background as the audience APPLAUDS him)[1:07;40]
Question #6 (a woman - Devils Advocate) WHY are you blaming the victims? (9-11) We're not blaming ALL Muslims but, what happened to the Moderate Muslims who need to put their best foot forward and recognize that they do have a certain amount of extremism. (She then mentions the American Japanese in WW 2 who were interred.)
They were not responsible for the actions of Japan but, because they were so vilified (she says) the internment was so we could protect them. We don't want to see Civil War in our streets the way ISIS is doing it. All we want - WHY are WE the VICTIMS not allowed to have the FBI to protect me...her? WHY are YOU right and I'm wrong?[1:08;55]
Kundnani tries to respond (she keeps talking in the background) First, you said I'm blaming the victims of 9-11. Kundnani insists he is NOT blaming the victims. He says our governments approach to counter-terrorism is misguided. We need to be consistent in our morality here.
If we're going to condemn 9-11, we also need to condemn the actions of our OWN government when IT kills civilians. If we want to talk about morality, THAT'S moral consistency.
When our own government carries out violence, which could be domestically, we have to condemn that as passionately as we condemn the violence of 9-11. That's the ONLY way we can condemn 9-11 without HYPOCRISY. (the room becomes a MESS of cross-talking)
(Rising above the vocal mess) He makes the point that the internment of the American Japanese (put in camps to "PROTECT" them) was one of the most Civil Rights (....?) that the US government has done in the last century [1:11;44] (She continues to argue with him and to babble-on til the next question)
Question #7 (a woman) [1:12;09] She feels he would have a much better argument if he said that the vast majority of Muslims are not radicalized, they don't follow these teachings. But, when you say Islamic teachings never have anything to do with this, quite frankly it's not believable.
NY Times had an interview, head of Pakistani madrassa system said that the "most important thing for his madrassa students to realize was that the destruction of the West is really the most important thing in Islam." You can say that he is misinterpreting Islam, but I'm sure he believes that the madrassa system is (...?) Islam for him.
He has a PHD in Islamic Theology. He is exterminating Yizidis and Christians; selling them in to slavery. He is NOT doing that because he is reacting to the actions of the United States. So, I would ask, it's just not credible to say that Islam never had anything to do with this.
Yes, the West has done wrong-things, but it's not credible, in my opinion. I'd like to know how you respond to that. (there is a smattering of applause)
Kundnani jumps right back to his meme, not wavering one little bit: Islamic theology is NOT the CAUSE of Terrorism [1:13;26] He says she's kind of objecting to something he's not exactly saying.
He takes a broader point with two talking points:
"Extremism causes terrorism.
Moderate Islam is a Religion of Peace."
Moderate Islam is a Religion of Peace."
"This still leaves you," he says, "with this flawed assumption that ideology causes Political Violence and Terrorism.
Ideology does NOT cause political violence and terrorism.
One does not become a terrorist because he read an Islamist extremist texts. That's never happened. Someone watches videos, becomes propagandized, becomes a terrorist. Never happened.
Kundnani gives one example of a woman in London, Choudhury, who is the closet example (he says) that it happened. That's IT.
The others:
It's Mental Health problems.
Looking for a Sense of Adventure.
OR Political Injustices.
THAT'S what the data tells you.
He says it's very hard to be objective about this right now. [1:16;09] And THEN he claims that " the place where you go for OBJECTIVE knowledge is University. It should be. That's what university is meant to do."
So-called Terrorism Studies Departments, which have been founded by Federal Government after 9-11 with HUGE sums of money for a PARTICULAR agenda (!) There's a revolving door between these particular departments. The FBI. The CIA. Various aspects of the National Security system. It's NOT genuinely independent place.
SO, we have to start to create opportunities for a much more NUANCED, more ACCURATE account of what causes terrorism.
Instead of talking about radicalism, we need to be talking about the political cause (as well as) the way religious language is used, ways of expressing propaganda.
QUESTION #8- A man [1:17;18] He must be a supporter. He begins with 'Thank you. Thank you for everything.' This is all about Obama. He voted for him (twice) He asks, "What is his role, in your theories about what's going on..."
Kundnani's response: Says he likes the question, because you would think that Obama would be pretty good on the issues.
He jumps to Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the 'so-called' under-wear bomber ( TSM: He was held at a Michigan federal prison and tried in a civilian court in Detroit, not a military tribunal , a controversy at the time.)
[1:18;36] Kundnani says, "After that incident, the way the media and the debate plays-out after-the-fact actually set (??) the Obama administration. He'd just been in office a few weeks."
The conclusion: 'They' (the Obama administration) decide that this 'issue' of terrorism has the potential to destroy any (?....) debate; to undermine (??) [1:18;57]THEY decide this can't happen again, to have an issue spiral out-of-control and make it seem to the American people that WE'RE not tough on Terrorism.
Obama does two things(domestically). He gives the FBI Free-Hand. All kinds of Civil Rights and Muslim Community organizations are constantly turning up, saying we have the issues about civil rights not getting any play.
Internationally his strategy is, "We will try to close down Guantanamo"[1:19;38] Kundnani continues, "Which, of course, is the right thing to do." We're going to END torture.
In fact, we STILL out-source people who need to be tortured. We don't do it ourselves any more. We're going to try to bring those kinds of processes within the judicial system so we can (do it) with some sort of legal veneer.[1:20;04].
Then, still referring to Obama's policies, he mentions drone-strikes as the (preferred?) kind of killer-act for counter-terrorism. We don't need to do something like the Iraq War again. We don't need to do interrogations (we've done so many now), we can just do extra--judicial killing. SO, he says, the ASSUMPTION was that the drone-strikes were THE solution.
He then mentions that Obama's War on Terror Strategy is centered around his weekly Tuesday morning meetings. (Does he attend these/DID he? ) The War on Terror strategy meetings, where the list of potential drone targets keeps growing and growing and with the advise coming from his National Security advisers.
But, Kundnani says, the drone-strikes aren't really 'doing it'. It just manufactures more people who were involved in violence. It seemed to be a quick-fix solution. But, it turned out to be worse. [1:21;28] Kundnani continues, "We keep looking for these quick-Fix solutions, which involve inflicting violence on other people"
(A woman mentions Bin Laden) Kundnani he responds: It seems like we are making progress on the War on Terror. Yet, we have another round of (.....) which resembles what we were getting in 2003.
The evening Bin-Laden was killed- Peter Berg CNN's Terrorism (guy) [1:22;10] said THIS is the END of the War on Terror (2011) It's a decade. We're DONE. (If only, says Kundnani) But, next morning, Hillary Clinton steps up and says the War on Terror continues. Lunch Time, the next day, Berg (back tracks). He is back on and says, the War on Terror is NOT over.
Kundnani says, the government did not use this opportunity to draw a line and think about these issues in a NEW way. They made a strategic error by saying "more of the same' and the message from CNN becomes just a sort of 'mouth-piece' for the government.
(Finishing his response to the woman) Yes, we 'got them out', but it doesn't feel like actually representing a 'kind-of' progress in retrospect now (The woman speaks, saying , "If we had not, we don't know what it would be like now) Kundnani feels it would be pretty much the same place.[1:23;45]
QUESTION #9 A man - [1:23;53]"Thank you for a very interesting presentation. (his question) Even if your more 'nuanced' approach is the better one, once any massive terrorist attack occurs, wouldn't any administration in power at the time be blamed for letting it happen."
Kundnani's response: Yes. (the man interrupts- every administration is afraid ) Yes, but, if you don't have a serious attack, no one's going to give you any credit for it. Now, any president, is just thinking about SELF-interest (wow - what a broad statement of 'fact': any and ALL presidents?) and that, he says, would a a TOUGH approach.
[1:25;30] He feels public opinion in the Fight Against Terrorism should we trade Civil Liberties for (greater ?) Powers for the Government. Ten years later (after people said 'yes') now people are saying, we should Keep our Civil Liberties.
It's not just about the incident of a Terrorist attack, it's about how we communicate about that terrorist attack in the aftermath. For example, the Boston Marathon bombing. It didn't produce any really significant changes in counter terrorism ( ...?) The reason: We'd been told for decades to expect something like that, if not worse. And when it hap pened, people were outraged, but they weren't surprised or shocked. It didn't generate the same kind of dynamic as the Post 9-11. (man interjects) But very few people were really killed. And you had thousands (Kundnani interrupts him) But, terrorism is about terror, not just about the number of people killed so ... look at the beheadings videos, where again, the number of people being killed is not the same as 9-11, but it's generated a whole lot of fear... in the United States... The man says, "But, people were killed---" Kundnani takes the next question.
Question #10 - a woman (accented English-Chinese) [1:27;08] This is just my observation. I agree with you. You do something wrong... you the minority must justify... The strategy...to wipe out the rich people. The so-called rich people. Or the intellectuals. I don't follow you very well, I feel like there is similarity. When I grew up in China. I didn't feel brain-washed. I was not active in politics. But, since I came to America, I find, I feel like brainwashing is universal. Not just in China. Right now we have so much brainwash. In America. I feel there is so much misunderstanding.
Your presentation, I think there is some truth, it's not about... it's like the Chinese Falun Gong. Americans have convince themselves we're a religion, we're not politics. Its totally politics. The Chinese, you have to understand the culture and I know Chinese culture so well, to know that Falun Gong is not a religion, it's politics. So I really appreciate your point. (healthy applause)
Kundnani's response [1:29;20] Thank you. All I can say is, an ideology is most affective when you don't realize it's an ideology. So in a society like the Soviet Union, or China, it's obvious that it's the State propaganda. We're not a Totalitarian Society which makes the ideologies we (Americans? The West?) have less obvious. In a way, it makes them all the more pernicious. An interesting comparison. Thank you.
Question #11- a Muslim man [1:29;55]I'm a Muslim and my family has been Muslim since the Time of the Prophets. (lots that he said was garbled) I'm a Muslim. But, I am Arabic. So, my experience with Western Foreign Policy is quite different from a Muslim who is Palestinian. A Muslim who is Pakistani. He mentions Sharia. [1:30;31] (He is difficult to understand)[1:30;51] He says we have to understand Muslim Community. State Religion. Every major (..?) is in Arabic. Our Religious beliefs are the same. Our Cultures are quite different. (hard to understand again) To combat Terrorism we have to go back to his culture, hi people who are committing this act. Ask WHY. Being Muslims (..?) (applause)
Kundnani [1:31;50] Thank you. The way you are talking about culture there, has some problems for me. "It's not the religion that cause the violence, but it's the CULTURE." (the man interjects) It's your cultural 'experience'. Perhaps I can be a bit more precise about it. (but he isn't) If you're talking about POLITICAL context where you have bombings....for me I'd describe that as a POLITICAL experience, NOT a Cultural Experience.
The reason I make that distinction... in order to defend against prejudice against Islam we create NEW prejudices against particular ethnic groups. We say Arabs because of their Cultural History become terrorists. Kundnani says he is personally uncomfortable with the idea that we would be saying they became terrorists because of their ethnicity (examples: Pakistanis or West Africans)
He ends with an obscure conclusion---When talking about different POLITICAL differences, you're absolutely right the political experience is hugely different. Different scenarios.
Question #12 - a man- [1:33;38] Thanks for speaking and putting up with us for so long. You've been talking about how a person's political context and their political experience can lead them to make a certain set of decisions. In the context of Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda, as far as my knowledge of their history goes, the kind of justification for the actions he had stemmed originally from the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. And I guess you can keep going back and forth with the U.S. military reacted this to this thing because another group did this thing... and you can get back to the 60's and Said Qu'tab and all these people...and you go back and forth...
So, how to you, kind of, make the distinctions that you are making that would stop the discussion from devolving into "He Said this/She Said this" or this came first... I think some of the comments that were happening earlier in this discussion: The FBI does this thing because Muslims or Arabs (whatever) have done this thing, but the counter-argument might go: The Arabs are acting this way because the U.S. government does this thing. And it could just go on and on forever.
Kundnani responds [1:34;49] (had difficulty transcribing some of this response) Right. And that's the cycle we're in. That's my whole point. We're doing this to you because you did this to us earlier. That's precisely the cycle we need to break. I would hope that (the society?) in the United States will be much better at breaking that cycle than our enemies. We should be the reasonable ones with a strategy to break that cycle, much more effectively.
There's always going to be the Bin Ladens who have an ideology that they use to legitimize their violence. (Their God? [1:35;36] Did he say that?) But, what we can do is to intervene to actually make their benevolent support for those people much reduced. (that's about change...?)
Right now, for me, thinking about the situation with ISIS, we need to radically rethink our whole alliance with Saudi Arabia. Probably Turkey as well. Thinking along those lines is the key to breaking these cycles.
We've turned a blind-eye to Saudi Arabia and the official and semi-official funding that it provides for armed groups in the Middle East; for decades. We have assumed that we NEED Saudi Arabia to be our 'friends' , to supply cheap oil into our economy and to keep buying our weapons. The REALITY is we DON'T need to do that.
We actually get most of our oil from Canada so we can radically change our whole relationship with Saudi Arabia and as a result see that horribly unDemocratic regime over thrown once we withdraw our support (...??)
[1:36;53] Right now the people who are most affected by the United States are the Kurds. (... ) We're never going to allow them to do very much because we have to hold on to Turkey as our ally.
We don't want the Kurds to become more influential in the region. (...) If we're serious, the United States, we should be doing something very different in terms of our relationship with Turkey. (...) ...our political thinking around the whole foreign policy towards the region... in a situation where we have genuine grass-roots movements in the Middle East OR real democratic societies where the people in the region get to shape the direction their societies take...That's the best way to prevent Terrorism in the end.
[1:38;08] How do we get there? We stop (...?) regimes in the region. Which no one talks about. Why don't we do that ... We don't want a genuine democracy in Egypt. If that happened, then the Egyptian people might choose not to be an ally of the United States anymore. These kind of questions (...?) how do we break that cycle and create a more peaceful Middle East.
Question #13- a man (1:38;55) What is your take on the Assad regime. Why it is that we did absolutely nothing to fight ISIS, even though ISIS destroyed four Divisions of Iraqi Troops ( ...) Why we did nothing to rid this country (of ISIS)
Kundnani's Response [1:39;28] Yes, the Syrian Regime. Mass Human Rights Abuses the last few years, and going back much further to his father, killing whole civilian populations an entire towns. I would be delighted to see that regime over-thrown. He feels the end of that regime will be part of how we bring about the end of ISIS. [1:40;02]
The reason the regime ... [noise on mic for about 40 seconds as I prepare to leave. Obscuring words] (sorry) The regime, how stupid ?... the perception that ISIS is the ONLY problem in Syria. The regime would be much 'happier' believing, convincing the world that he's involved in a conflict (where he's faced with this ??... ISIS... rather thinking these groups that are involved with ...? Syrian regime. (?....?) [1:40;42]
From VSB: As I finish transcribing the Q and A, there has been ANOTHER ISIS BEHEADING. Sunday, November 16, 2014. "Abdul-Rahman" Kassig aka Peter Kassig. He converted ('reverted') to Islam. It didn’t save him. He had fought in Iraq in the U.S. military, and so for the Islamic State he was a “Crusader” and had to die. His gruesome murder is part of a 16 minute video sent to the Social Networks. Kassig was murdered as part of a MASS beheading that included about a dozen Syrian soldiers.
Continuing with Kundnani's comments regarding Syria and ISIS. " So,that's why the Assad Regime has been buying oil ISIS ...? To the extent that ... strategy...2003...don't wind up with...in some way the hypocrisy of the last two years... Assad regime in the one hand.... on the other hand, the opposition... ? [wish I had gotten this statement.... I had now left the room and had mic noise interference-again)
Question #14 - man- (I was in the hallway) - Began by thanking Kundnani for giving people this platform; to sit down and listen to you. "I'm a Muslim, a convert to Islam (8 years back) I'm from India. My parents are still Hindu.."
END audio [1:42;19;00]
++
The Q and A was still going on after an hour. I quickly took a couple of cell-phone pics as I left the room. This is the best angle I could get of the clean-cut, 'NYPL Dr.Kundnani' vs the academic radical I found on-line.
Later, I found pictures of a completely different 'look' from Dr. Kundnani
Seems this is his 'rebel' Kundnani, speaking to the Muslim student orgs.
Since beheadings are IN THE NEWS. I wold love to see Dr. Kundnani encourage a dialogue that would focus on this question:
"Is it 'Islamophobic' to oppose 'beheadings?"
Our foreign policy should be guided by understanding and admitting the following realities:
We are engaged in a war of ideas, with our principal enemy: an ideology.
An ideology that will not collapse out of economic incompetence.End the Silence (before it's too late)
- The ideology of the terrorists is religiously based and derived from Islam and its founding texts, the Koran, hadith, and the sunna, and the history of the early caliphate.
- One, but not the only way we know this, is because they tell us so.
++
No comments:
Post a Comment