Geller: Brennan is ‘Pro-Jihadist’


While normal people in touch with reality are concerned that President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA has a history of bring pro-torture, the completely unhinged Pam Geller opposes his nomination because he apparently just loves Muslim terrorists. With no evidence at all, of course.

President Barack Obama said Monday that he would nominate former Nebraska Sen. Hagel, a Republican, to be secretary of defense, and his top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Astonishing. Obama is doing the full monty.

The president’s CIA pick has called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam,” arguing that the term “jihadists” should not be used to describe America’s enemies. During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces,” but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in “religious terms.”

Brennan is right, the concept of jihad in Islam does not mean an action to kill infidels. A jihad is simply a holy struggle, which might sometimes be violent but could be something entirely benign as well. But all of this is just a question of language, not actions. For crying out loud, Brennan has for the past four years been the president’s top counter-terrorism adviser and has participated in building the drone strike program and killing dozens of Muslim terrorists around the world, decimating the Al Qaeda leadership. And at the CIA, he defended the torture of Muslim terrorism suspects. To claim that he’s pro-jihadist is beyond perverse. Only in the fetid mind of Pam Geller could such a claim fester.

Comments

  1. says

    Sure, he built the drone strike* program, but did you really know that it exists simply to arm Al Tater with hellfire missiles? Barack Hussein Obama even explodes the missiles for them, to save them time!
    And he didn’t defend CIA torture. If these suspects were really tortured, then why do they still have their fingernails? Why are they still alive? And Gitmo is like a tropical vacation! A permanent vacation!
     
    * Side note: Why are the drones striking? Greedy Unions!

  2. D. C. Sessions says

    Near enough, Jihad=Crusade (leaving aside the purely personal use of Jihad)

    To muslims, “crusade” refers to a period in history when Christians repeatedly attacked Muslims without provocation and committed atrocities not only on Muslims but on Jews and other Christians. In short, Christianity at its most nakedly rabid.

    Geller and fellow travelers, on the other hand, proudly name damn near everything possible a “crusade.” And they, unsurprisingly, get bent out of shape when Muslims use a term with a much older history in its original context.

  3. says

    Of course some of what upsets Pam is that Brennan implied that the terrorists might be doing what they’re doing because of what they think are legitimate grievances. Every True American(tm) knows they do it because they’re ordered by Satan.

  4. says

    Village Voice:

    Geller: I’m anti-jihad. They’ve [the left] never described me that way. Ever. They’ve never described me as anti-jihad. They say I’m anti-Muslim. I’m not anti-Muslim. I don’t see how anyone could say I’m anti-Muslim […] I love Muslims.”

  5. Michael Heath says

    Pam Geller writes:

    John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces . . .”

    The CIA has long reported these are the core driving factors which fuels Islamist terrorism. So assuming Ms. Geller is properly describing Mr. Brennan’s perspective, where she’s a liar so I’m skeptical, it’s nice to know that Mr. Brennan accepts reality as a key premise to drive policy.

    What’s particularly sad when it comes to this topic was in the last two presidential campaigns, Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate I observed who conceded this reality. (I don’t recall Jon Huntsman’s rhetoric on this topic so I don’t include him in this set.)

  6. Michael Heath says

    In many if not most corporations, the culture and esprit de corps is significantly influenced by the highest ranking active officer. I wonder how different this is in government institutions led by a temporary political appointee. I note this because I find Mr. Brennan to be a really dour person and therefore unsuited to lead an organization; especially if that organization’s leader influences morale.

  7. Bill Openthalt says

    @2: There was no period during which

    Christians repeatedly attacked Muslims without provocation and committed atrocities not only on Muslims but on Jews and other Christians.

    The crusades have to be seen in the framework of the conflicts between the Byzantine empire and the Rashidun, Umayyads and Seljuqs, as well as the Umayyad conquest of the Visigoth kingdom of Hispania between 711 and 788. This framework is essentially one of expansionary wars initiated by the muslim Arabs just after the death of Muhammad. The invaders of Hispania were Berbers, and the Seljuq were Turks, but their rulers used religion to stabilise and unify their peoples. The christian crusades were in part motivated by religion (much more dominant in the mindset of the people of 7th-14th centuries) but also by greed, but the religious motivation was made possible by the muslim conquests and their threat to the Byzantine empire’s possession of the “Holy Land”.

    The “West” during those centuries was a comparatively primitive backwater, and their contribution to the battle between the Byzantine empire and the Kaliphate was marginal if not negative. The 4th crusade captured Constantinople in 1204, doing more damage than good to the “christian” cause, and showing rather clearly that the crusades were part of the ongoing battles between emperors, kings and other rulers rather than an organised conflict between religions. This is also quite apparent from the battles between the various ruling dynasties in the muslim world over the same period.

    Constantinople was conquered in 1453 by the Ottomans, and the Byzantine empire ceased to exist. The strife between the Ottoman empire and its European neighbours continued, with the siege of Vienna in 1529 marking the turning point of nearly a century of unchecked expansion of the Ottoman empire. After 150 years of arcimonious conflict, the battle of Vienna in 1683 confirmed the relative decay of the Ottoman power and became the starting point of the Great Turkish war to drive the Ottoman empire out of Europe. In 1492, the الاسترد or reconquista of Al-Andalus evicted the last Moors from the Iberian peninsula.

    What we see is a sequence of conquests and reconquests, with alliances that did not always follow religious affiliation. The crusades were footnotes, not more and not less violent than the conflicts that preceded and followed them. There never was a war between christianity and islam – both religions are divided and clashes between denominations have been as frequent as clashes between religions, and have been just as violent.

    Relgion unites people by creating a common ennemy. So does nationalism, or any approach that considers the membership of a group more important than the individual.

  8. says

    Bill, nice exposition.

    And though the crusaders did “commit… atrocities not only on Muslims but on Jews and other Christians” so did the Muslims. And if it was OK for them to violently overrun those territories in the C7 & 8 why wouldn’t it be OK for the crusaders to try to do the same (with varying degrees of failure :-) ) a few Cs later.

  9. anandine says

    Jihad is the struggle to do the will of God. The problem, as usual, is in ascertaining what the will of God is.

  10. Bill Openthalt says

    @10 Thanks Richard. I didn’t want to suggest there were no atrocities, and as you point out, atrocties were committed by all sides in the conflicts. We have to be careful not to see historical events through the filters of our own time and culture. What is a glorious victory for one party is a calamitous defeat for another (and either victory or defeat would have been an unmitigated disaster for the population living in the battle zone), and many events, battles and conflicts have been used and abused by nationalists and other ideologues to further their cause.

    It is fair to say that almost all the historical “facts” in the history books of official curricula are biased towards the country publishing the books. Not all go as far as blatantly rewriting history, but many get astonishingly close.

  11. bradleybetts says

    So because he at least makes an attempt to understand the root causes which drive people to committ terrorism, thus coming a step closer to actually solving the problem, he must be a terrorist sympathiser? *sigh*.

  12. says

    @9:

    While a perfectly good description of the complexities of Medieval Europe and the wars between Muslim and Christian states, I don’t see how it negates the claim that, “Christians repeatedly attacked Muslims without provocation and committed atrocities not only on Muslims but on Jews and other Christians.”

    The fact that the crusaders attacked Jews and Christians just goes to show that it wasn’t all about religion. The crusaders were violent thugs who had their own agenda. But their religious posturing certainly left an impression on the Muslims, and there is a reason why Muslims negatively view the term “crusade”, which after all, is etymologically derived from “cross”.

  13. says

    So because he at least makes an attempt to understand the root causes which drive people to committ terrorism, thus coming a step closer to actually solving the problem, he must be a terrorist sympathiser? *sigh*.

    I think it’s even worse than that. He seems to be saying that the term “jihad” shouldn’t be used when referring to terrorism because it has positive connotations among Muslims. Likewise, if you were to use the term “crusaders” to refer to Christian terrorists, you’d mislead a lot of people into thinking that these people had a worthy cause.

    It’s a subtle point about using words that mean different things to different people, but Geller doesn’t do subtlety. All Muslims are jihadis, all jihadis are terrorists, and anyone who thinks differently is in league with them.

Leave a Reply