Army acknowledges pedophilia part of Islam
Manual warns soldiers in Afghanistan not to talk about certain subjects
by
Jack Minor
A
new Army manual that warns American soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid
talking about certain topics has unwittingly acknowledged that Western
taboos such as pedophilia are an inherent part of Islamic culture.
“By mentioning that pedophilia and women’s rights and saying that
soldiers should not mention such things they are tacitly admitting that
those things are indeed part of Islam,” said Robert Spencer, founder of
Jihad Watch.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a new 75-page Army manual
suggests U.S. soldiers are to blame for the large number of deadly
attacks on them by Afghan security forces. The manual reportedly says
the soldiers may have brought the attacks on themselves because of
insensitivity towards Islamic culture.
“Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance
of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms,
resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force]
member,” the draft report prepared by Army researchers and obtained by
the Journal said.
Clare Lopez, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy,
said the suggestion that U.S. soldiers are to blame for the attacks on
them by Afghan security forces is outrageous.
“To suggest that our troops are somehow being murdered because of our
insensitivity to their culture is essentially saying it’s our own fault
that the troops are being killed because we weren’t nice enough to
them,” Lopez said. “The fundamental refusal to acknowledge that the
enemy fights because of what he says he fight for, which is Islam, is a
failure by our professional leadership from Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta on down. Because of this, we have no strategy.”
This year alone, more than three dozen attacks have killed 63
coalition forces. In an attempt to quell the attacks the Army report has
issued a list of “taboo conversational topics.”
The topics include “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,”
“advocating women’s rights” and “directing any criticism towards
Afghans” or “anything related to Islam.”
WND contacted the Army to request a copy of the manual. Army
spokesman Ray Harp responded by saying it would not release a copy, for
security reasons. He explained the Army wished to avoid detailing
specific tactics, techniques and procedures outlined in the handbook.
Regarding the WSJ copy, Harp said whoever released it was not authorized to do so.
“While the handbook does contain information we do not want freely
distributed into the hands of our enemies, it is labeled with the ‘For
Official Use Only’ restriction,” Harp said. “While still officially
unclassified, we require the information to be protected from an open
distribution and it should not have been released to anyone outside of
those who needed access to it for official purposes.”
Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, says
while she has not seen the draft copy, she can understand how it is
beneficial for the Army to help teach soldiers about cultural
differences. Unfortunately, she said, Congress and military leaders
often go too far.
“There is a cultural problem that the military needs to confront, but
I’m not sure this manual is the best way to go about it,” Donnelly
said. “If the information in it is for our soldier’s protection so as to
prevent something from being provocative, it might save a life, but if
as the article suggests it is calling for soldiers to be overly
deferential, that’s not called for.”
Donnelly noted the example of Navy Lt. Florence Choe, who was shot by
an Afghan guard in 2009 for wearing shorts while jogging along the
perimeter of the base.
“I’m not saying this was her fault, but if her commanders had taken
the time to acknowledge that individuals in that part of the world have a
different attitude in regards to women in shorts, it might have saved
her life,” she said.
However, Donnelly says there are other taboos supposedly in the report that appear to have gone too far.
The Army manual also advises soldiers to avoid “any criticism of
pedophilia” or “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct.”
“In that part of the world homosexuality is condemned, and pedophilia
is accepted. It’s not like our culture at all and that needs to be
acknowledged. We don’t have to be subservient to be cautious,” she
continued. “Unfortunately, often times our leaders want to go overboard,
believing it will help our relationships with these countries, but the
truth is it doesn’t.”
The Army manual has drawn sharp criticism from Marine Gen. John
Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan. Allen reportedly has
rejected a proposed foreword written by the Army using his name.
“Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a
foreword,” Col. Tom Collins, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in
Afghanistan said. “He does not approve of its contents.”
Spencer says the ban on criticizing pedophilia has put the military
in a difficult position. By attempting to show cultural sensitivity, it
is forced to acknowledge that pedophilia is an inherent part of Islamic
teaching.
“This draws attention to the fact that despite denials by the U.S.
government and groups like CAIR, these things are a part of official
Islam,” Spencer said. “However, I don’t expect them to have the honesty
to acknowledge the inconsistency.”
He said that by telling soldiers not to speak against pedophilia, the
military and the U.S. government is essentially endorsing the behavior.
“We are essentially sending the message that the United States
endorses pedophilia by refusing to speak out against it. I don’t see any
way around this.”
Clare Lopez, also a senior fellow with the Clarion Fund, said the new
manual is another example of how the military is sending the message
that Western culture and values are subservient to Islam.
“It’s another step in a process of submission to the appeasement of
Islam that the United States leadership including military leadership
has been pursuing for quite a while,” she said. “The entire program
seems to be geared to appeasing the Taliban and jihadists by giving in
to their world view which says Islam should not be offended and letting
them decide what is offensive.”
She said the problem is not limited to the Obama administration but began in Afghanistan under President George W. Bush.
“This actually began in 2004 when we helped Afghanistan enshrine
Islamic Shariah law in the constitution. Once we did that, we no longer
had any purpose being in the country because we gave the enemy
everything they asked for,” she noted. “That’s what they fight for, the
imposition of Shariah. All of these other measures that followed from
that point on have been a further attempt to win their hearts and minds.
It hasn’t worked as is evident by the fact they are still killing our
soldiers.”
The Army manual is in keeping with policies by the Obama
administration to deliberately scrub all training materials that
criticize Islam. Earlier this year, the FBI destroyed all of its
materials that taught there was an Islamic connection to terrorism.
WND previously reported
the Pentagon refused to give assurances that soldiers who burned the
Quran would not be turned over to Afghan authorities to face trial.
Cmdr. William Speakes, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said: “It would
be premature to speculate at any potential outcomes. Any disciplinary
action if deemed warranted will be taken by U.S. authorities after a
thorough review of the facts pursuant to all U.S. military law and
regulations and in accordance with due process. We have made no
commitments beyond that.”
When asked if that meant the only commitment officials were willing
to make was that the soldiers would not be tried in an Afghan court,
Speakes said: “No. The only commitment we have made is that we will take
any appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary by the
investigation. Any suggestions that we have made more detailed
commitments beyond what I just told you is inaccurate.”
Spencer said the Army manual sends the message to Middle Easterners
that despite statements by our government, they cannot expect any help
from America when it comes to fighting for basic human rights.
“Anybody in these Muslim countries that wanted to see freedom of
speech, a crackdown on pedophilia, or rights for women were disappointed
at the time that we endorsed the Afghan constitution which enshrined
these principles in Islamic law,” Spencer said. “It sends the message to
advocates of human rights and freedom that the United States is not
going to help them and they are on their own.”
