Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

muslim_mafiaIt is no secret to BU the 911 event which occurred in New York on the 11 September 2001 has added to tensions between the Muslim and Christian worlds. The reported terrorist acts which resulted in the demolition of the Twin Towers, damaged to the Pentagon and tragically resulted in the loss of many lifes has scared world history. The act was tracked to the Al Qaeda network by the US authorities and predictably the fallout has reverberated across the world. During the last US Presidential Election Campaign the foreign policy the candidates would adopt if elected was placed under heavy scrutiny especially concerning the current conflicts in Muslim  Iraq, Afghanistan and for other reasons Iran. To President Barack Obama’s credit he fulfilled a campaign promise when he delivered a speech targeting his message at the Muslim world back in May designed to ease tension. He demonstrated courage and imagination by travelling to Egypt to do so.

Eight years later BU is not sure there has been any deflation of tensions even though President Obama has been able to benefit by being awarded a Nobel Peace prize significantly attributed to his efforts at enabling a climate which encourages peace.

It must concern President Obama now that he carries the weight of being a Nobel Laureate; the unravelling revelation in a book just released that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been fingered in a memo obtained through Paul Sperry’s newest book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, CAIR lays out plans to place interns in the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Homeland Security for the purpose of influencing policy.

Interesting indeed, so what does the future hold?

A Free Press For A Free People

‘Now we have proof’ jihadis infiltrating D.C.

Congress seizes on explosive new book based on daring undercover CAIR probe

In the wake of the sensational ACORN video sting operation by two young investigators, an even more daring, dangerous and devastating undercover investigation – this one infiltrating the nation’s most aggressive Muslim “civil rights” organization for six months – has resulted in stunning revelations about the supposedly “moderate” group, backed up by 12,000 pages of documents and 300 hours of covert video obtained during the secret op.

As revealed in a new book detailing the operation and its findings, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is not the beneficent Muslim civil-rights group it claims to be. Rather, as indisputable evidence now shows, CAIR and other “mainstream” Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.

Until now, CAIR has remained a powerful force in the nation’s capitol and across the country, from demanding the Obama administration stop FBI counter-terrorism tactics to compelling a school district to apologize to Muslims.

That influence, many believe, may be coming to an end, as a result of the stunning undercover investigation — which included the son of a veteran counter-terrorism investigator, who grew a beard and converted to Islam, as well as two veiled female interns.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad shakes hands with intern Chris Gaubatz, aka David Marshall, at CAIR’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., in 2008

“Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” a WND Books publication by counter-terrorism investigator Dave Gaubatz and “Infiltration” author Paul Sperry, documents CAIR’s ultimate purpose to transform the United States into an Islamic nation under the authority of the Quran.

The book already has prompted action on Capitol Hill.

With evidence from “Muslim Mafia” in hand, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the Congressional Anti-Terror Caucus, and other members of Congress – including Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Paul Broun, R-Ga. – plan to hold a press conference today in Washington calling for an investigation and an end to political lobbying by front groups such as CAIR.

“Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamists] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan,” Myrick writes in the foreword to “Muslim Mafia.”

Noting that CAIR has tried to hide its strategy, finances, membership, internal disputes and much more from public view since its founding in 1994, Islam expert Daniel Pipes lauded “Muslim Mafia” for definitively exposing the “tawdry and often illegal inner workings of radical Islam’s most aggressive organization in North America.”

“The revelations in this book should both put CAIR out of business and permanently discredit the Islamist cause,” Pipes said.

Undercover

The book begins as a real-life, heart-pounding thriller, with Chris Gaubatz, the son of co-author David Gaubatz, preparing to go underground as an intern for CAIR at its Herndon, Va., office.

Astoundingly, the younger Gaubatz, posing as a bearded Muslim convert, ends up with a position at CAIR’s national office in Washington, just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building, working alongside top leaders Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad and Corey Saylor.

Along with declassified government documents, the book unveils thousands of e-mails, faxes and internal memos that were never meant for public viewing.

Chris Gaubatz and CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper working the CAIR booth at the 45th annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008

The new evidence shows that CAIR – already designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history – is part of an organized crime network in America made up of more than 100 other Muslim front groups that collectively comprise the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

“Muslim Mafia” also exposes the inner workings of the mob-like Brotherhood and explains its broader conspiracy of infiltrating the American government and “destroying Western civilization from within.”

“The evidence found in the investigation is incontrovertible,” said co-author Sperry, noting that the book has more than 40 pages of footnotes and an appendix with more than 50 pages of exclusive confidential documents.

The Brotherhood is known within Islamist circles as the “Ikhwan mafia” because of its highly organized structure, centralized control and covert operations. CAIR, reveals “Muslim Mafia,” is one part of the network of front groups, cut-outs and shell companies that shield the Brotherhood’s criminal activities from authorities.

“These guys talk about jihad and murdering Jews like the mob talked about killing – totally casual, like they were ordering pizza,” said one FBI official in Washington quoted in the book.

Some key smoking-gun revelations detailed in “Muslim Mafia” include:

  • New evidence that CAIR was launched to support the Hamas terrorist group, and has transferred tens of thousands of dollars to a group recently convicted as Hamas’ top fundraising arm in the U.S. – money that ended up aiding terrorist attacks on Israelis and Americans;
  • Internal documents showing CAIR, despite claims of cooperating with law enforcement, actively works behind the scenes to mislead and deceive the FBI on behalf of terrorism suspects – and has even cultivated Muslim moles inside law enforcement who have tipped off FBI terror targets;
  • CAIR is more closely tied to al-Qaida than previously reported;
  • CAIR claims to represent all Muslim Americans, however, it has victimized some 100 indigent Muslims in a massive fraud and threatened them when they tried to go to the media; and internally, personnel complaints reveal CAIR discriminates against Shiite Muslims and Muslim women within its own headquarters;
  • CAIR and its sister fronts are funded by foreign Muslim Brotherhood sources;
  • CAIR leaders share the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goal to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shariah law;
  • The Muslim Brotherhood investment in corporate America will be used to pressure U.S. companies into compliance with Islamic principles.

The book also shows radical Muslims in the U.S. are working to support Palestinian terrorists, destroy Israel, gut U.S. anti-terrorism laws, loosen U.S. Muslim immigration policies and convert Americans to Islam.

The authors explain they targeted CAIR because it helps control the “religious crime syndicate from its power base in Washington, the capitol of the same government it wishes to overthrow.”

While the FBI has cut formal ties to CAIR in the wake of its designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to fund the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the group has virtually unfettered access to Capitol Hill and continues to wield influence in the White House.

Certificate signed by Nihad Awad and awarded to Chris Gaubatz for completing his internship

CAIR, the book reveals, regularly reserves meeting rooms and prays Fridays alongside Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and a growing number of Muslim staffers.

The first Muslim elected to Congress and a de facto CAIR board member, Ellison predicted in one CAIR power breakfast he soon would be flanked by 15 other Muslim congressmen, “Muslim Mafia” notes.

Chris Gaubatz, in fact, once found himself praying elbow-to-elbow with Ellison during a Friday prayer gathering attended by CAIR inside the U.S. Capitol.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the book says, is totally in the dark about the threat, and so is the White House.

In fact, reveals “Muslim Mafia,” in the White House President Obama is hiring Muslims – including an adviser who advocates compliance with Shariah law – based on resumes solicited from Muslim Brotherhood fronts.

Meanwhile, the FBI is in conflict internally about how to deal with the Brotherhood, with some top officials in favor of maintaining outreach, while counter-terror case agents in the field strongly object, pointing to evidence the network is a factory for homegrown terror and is secretly carrying out activities hostile to the U.S.

“They’ve achieved outrageous penetration at senior levels of our government,” veteran FBI special agent John Guandolo warns in the book.

Until recently, the FBI engaged in outreach activities with CAIR, including forcing rookie agents to take cultural field trips to area mosques.

The “Muslim Mafia” authors obtained notes revealing the FBI even has offered to sponsor Muslim youth camps with the Boys Clubs of America.

A shortage of Arab linguists and dozens of discrimination suits by Arab and Muslim employees has prompted the FBI to recruit from Brotherhood-related groups, such as the Islamic Society of North America

A Muslim agent who drew national attention when he refused to tape-record a fellow Muslim during a terrorism investigation was promoted and now recruits other Muslims to become agents and linguists.

‘Hit sheets’

The book also presents evidence CAIR has prepared “hit sheets” on its critics in the news media in an effort to intimidate them into silence.

Internal memos show, for example, top officials privately met with CNN executives in Atlanta to press them to cancel Glenn Beck’s program on its Headline News network. Beck now has a highly rated afternoon show on the Fox News Channel.

CAIR’s campaign to boycott leading nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage’s advertisers cost more than $160,000, the book reveals. The authors recount how CAIR ran out of money before it could crack Savage’s most loyal sponsors.

The book also includes new revelations about CAIR’s role in the “flying imams” case in 2006 in which six Muslim leaders were removed from an airline flight in Minneapolis after passengers and crew members reported what they believed to be suspicious behavior.

“Muslim Mafia” also exposes CAIR’s secret agenda to criminalize anti-terror profiling by police and private entities.

Gaubatz is a veteran federal investigator and counter-terrorism specialist who served for more than a decade as a special agent in the U.S. Air Force’s elite Office of Special Investigations. He held the U.S. government’s highest security clearances, including Top Secret/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), and was briefed in many so-called black projects.

Gaubatz also is a State Department-trained Arabic linguist with more than two decades of experience in the Middle East, including tours in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq. In 2003, he led a 15-man team to rescue the family members of the Iraqi lawyer credited with saving Army Private First Class Jessica Lynch.

Sperry, a media fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is former Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and former Washington bureau chief of WorldNetDaily.com.

His bestseller “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington,” is being used by the U.S. military and top law enforcement departments nationwide. Many of the numerous stories he has broken on national security and counter-terrorism have been cited by the Washington Post, USA Today, UPI and the Associated Press, among others. His columns have appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Houston Chronicle, American Spectator and Reason.

One FBI official quoted in “Muslim Mafia” says CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups differ from al-Qaida in that, while all share the same goals, they use different methods to achieve them.

“The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics,” the official explained.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

603 responses to “Muslim Mafia In America: What Does The Future Bode?”


  1. Instead of our fixation on ideologies and theories, similar effort maybe better focussed on examining what made Hitler and Guevara the effective leaders they became.


  2. David:

    Hitler was a demonic totalitarian mesmeriser, manipulator and abusive dominator; notorious for the big lie — so big that the ordinary man could not believe it was a lie — as the means to manipulate the masses. (Of course, when he and his henchmen talked about it, they were careful to project it unto the British.)

    Guevara was a murderous ideologue in an ideological age mad on political visions of utopia.

    Both manifested the destructive power of the idolatry of political messianism; multiplied by ideological manipulation of education and media systems. Both were also deeply and destructively influenced by the inherent irrationality and amorality of evolutionary materialism, the dominant origin myth of our post-modern [people were alre4ady talking about that in the aftermath of the First World War], post-Christian “scientific” age.

    What we need to learn from such misleaders is along the lines of errors to avoid, and disasters to avert.

    D


  3. …..’Beyond that, tagging views one does not like with demonising labels and dismissing, is a major failure of intellectual responsibility.

    D

    Wow…
    Their hypocrisy has no bounds!!
    Pot calling kettle black.


  4. D, Sorry man, when dealing with such *Leftist* junkies, who have to light a candle to see the *Sun*, I can’t tone down, no way!

    “To say of what IS, that it IS, or of what it IS NOT, that it IS NOT, is true.”

    Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1077 b 26.

    So it be!


  5. As Luther dealt with Tetzel, he said of Tetzel, that he dealt with the Bible ‘wie die Sau mit Habersack’ (as the Hog with a meal-bag); of the learned Cardinal Cajetan, that he knew as little of spiritual theology as “the Donkey of the harp;” Luther called Alveld, professor of theology at Leipzig, * a most asinine ass*, and Dr. Eck “Dreck:” for which he was in turn styled ‘luteus, lutra, etc.

    So help me God, I can do none other!


  6. @David, “…similar effort maybe better focussed on examining what made Hitler and Guevara the *effective* leaders they became.”

    For real, David, you use the adjective ‘effective’ synonym(s) of which are, ‘efficacious, virtuous, valid, useful, sound, etc, these vicious butchers, muderers, godless tyrants, can be deemed, by you, “…the effective leaders they became.”

    Is this how you perceive *effective* leaders, to be, such as Hitler and Guevara?


  7. Imagine ..David asks a question..rather than answering, Zoe tries to spin it into what he/she wants it to be.
    Just deal with the question as David has asked or dont answer.


  8. Careful David…you will soon be classified as Leftist, Jihadist, ignorant,fool etc.


  9. @Zoe

    You should establish what defines leadership before you get hot under the collar 🙂


  10. Technician:

    I think you will observe that at every stage I have provided facts and reasons for my conclusions (e.g. latterly including a bit of nuke weapons physics — for which I happen to have a bit of relevant background — and news from the Guardian on IAEA’s concerns on Iran’s progress to a two point linear implosion weapon . . . thus implications for IRBMs and ICBMs as well as man portable nukes . . . ), so my arguments are precisely not dismissive.

    You may disagree as you like; but, what are your substantiating and substantial facts and reasons for that, apart from playing at name-calling me a “hypocrite”?

    In short, the evidence so far suggests you are playing at unsubstantiated turnabout accusation.

    That’s not good enough; by a long shot — though, sadly, but on fair comment: it has been par for your course to date.

    Surely, you can do better.

    And, if you don’t; well, the astute onlooker can [already?] see just what is going on, from who is discussing substantial matters, and who is resorting to name-calling and sniping.

    G’day.

    D

    PS: Zoe, getting down in the mud only gets you into a contest with the more experienced in that sort of thing.

    PPS: David, I would hope that leadership, especially national or international level leadership, has a positive moral dimension. Hitler et al and the Communists were able to gain power and get many things done [some quite good], but the ghosts of 100++ millions moan out that they did not provide positive leadership. For all his own faults (some of which are quite instructive!) Sir Winston Churchill would make a better exemplar to study. I would start with New World Enc’s upgrade to the Wiki article. A good second move would be to read some of his own writings, especially where he was a principal participant [the eyewitness aspects and personal explanations by a fgreat man make a key difference], but don’t forget to read his critics too and objective historians. I have found his six volume series on WW 2 a goldmine; though of course not without flaws. [I think it was the Auk or Wavell — a real undersung hero — who threatened suit over some things he said, and with good reason!] But also I think that a serious level study of Jesus in the gospels, Paul in the Acts, David, Moses and Nehemiah are a good point of departure for serious thoughts on leadership. Just Acts 27 is a whole school on decision-making in a democracy in a nutshell.


  11. @David, Maybe, you should have defined ‘effective’ before using it as a qualifier for leadership!


  12. @Zoe

    No hard feelings, we thought the thrust of out intervention was obvious 🙂


  13. @ D

    Unlike you …I am not looking for a fan club ok!!


  14. The recent shooting by Major Hasan will do nothing to the general perception by many of Muslim/Islam.

    The fact he shouted Allahu akbar! before he started shooting must be muddying the deal.

    What about the belief by fringe Muslims element that the Shariah approach is the way?


  15. David:

    I am heading out the door just now.

    The issue is that there is a faction of Islam that is like maj Hasan has turned out to be, and as CAIR etc seem to be.

    We must reckon with that, understand that it is not all (and not most either) muslims, and we must address serious security threats and penetrations as such, whether or not hidden under the guise of religion or race. And, moderate muslims have a particular duty to police their ranks, so if they are being intimidated and pressured, we need to provide a safe place of whistleblowing.

    Not so long ago, Italian immigrants were in thralldom to the Mafia, but with adequate policing, they were able to break out of that,and spawn prosecutors like Rudy Giuliani, who made his reputation putting mafiosi behind bars, as someone out there has recently pointed out.

    A head in the sand attitude about unpleasant realities, and nasty namecalling (and worse) against those who blow the whistle are utterly unhelpful.

    And, remember, suitcase nukes are now credibly on the table of suicide terrorist options, within months to a year.

    Look up the links I have given on dhimmitude, and think about whether that is a desirable condition for your children.

    G’day.

    D


  16. @David, If I understand your first statement, to mean that many Muslims will not be induced to follow Mj. Hasan, that’s not the point, as the world has seen what just a ‘few’ radical Islamist can achieve, i.e., 9/11, and the most recent of all, Dr. Maj. Hasan.

    Just imagine what a handful of Jihadist Muslims could do with the suitcase nuke to 5 or 10 major cities and the millions of lives killed by these ‘few’ not to mention the radioactive fallout, etc, etc, that would literally cause utter chaos to the entire nation(s).

    Shouting *Allah akbar* by a Jihadist, just before he KILLS, destroys, is proclaiming his allegiance, loyalty, and ardor to Allah, in being willing to sacrifice his very life, in order to kill the infidels, Christians and Jews, for the cause of Islam.

    Shariah law though the driving force of Islamist, is nevertheless, what obtains in most Muslim nations anyway, varying in minor aspects in some countries. The point is, this IS what CAIR and the intent of Jihadist want to impose on America, and by extension the whole world, through subtle, deceptive, infiltration of government, military, social and other key institutions by stealth.

    Of course, in the interim they will have the Mj. Hasan’s who in their minority, will cause major disruption, if allowed to ignite this *martyr* Jihadist mentality, among other Muslims, who may need a push, encouragement, to go in this direction.

    David, just think of it for a moment, God forbid this would ever happen in B’dos. Suppose we have here in our midst, such a deranged Muslim, who is so led from within, to walk into Cave Shepherd, or the Airport, at the busiest period, with a bomb strapped to his chest, and ignite it killing hundreds, instantly, we don’t want to imagine the consequences to our little nation, from ONE such Islamist Jihadist, do we?

  17. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Islamists, Zionists and Christianists are plagues on this planet. If these religious zealots followed the principle teachings of Islam, Judaism and Christianity instead of the distorted versions forged out of their addiction to worldly pursuits and secular power, the world would be a better place.

    “the world has seen what just a ‘few’ radical Islamist can achieve, i.e., 9/11, and the most recent of all, Dr. Maj. Hasa”

    The world has also seen what a few radical Christianists can achieve, i.e., Iraq war, and the most recent of all, Scott Roeder”.

    Zoe/Dictionary… leave Christianism behind and become Christians… it will bring peace to your troubled souls and parsimony to your lengthy posts.


  18. The myth of suitcase nukes exposed
    May 25, 2009 — Stefan Fobes

    Suitcase nuclear weapons? Probably a myth
    Hollywood, Congress stoke fears of weapon; experts doubt their existence

    11.10.07 / AP

    WASHINGTON – Members of Congress have warned about the dangers of suitcase nuclear weapons. Hollywood has made television shows and movies about them. Even the Federal Emergency Management Agency has alerted Americans to a threat — information the White House includes on its Web site.

    But government experts and intelligence officials say such a threat gets vastly more attention than it deserves. These officials said a true suitcase nuke would be highly complex to produce, require significant upkeep and cost a small fortune.

    Counterproliferation authorities do not completely rule out the possibility that these portable devices once existed. But they do not think the threat remains.

    “The suitcase nuke is an exciting topic that really lends itself to movies,” said Vahid Majidi, the assistant director of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. “No one has been able to truly identify the existence of these devices.”

    Majidi and other government officials say the real threat is from a terrorist who does not care about the size of his nuclear detonation and is willing to improvise, using a less deadly and sophisticated device assembled from stolen or black-market nuclear material.

    Yet Hollywood has seized on the threat. For example, the Fox thriller “24” devoted its entire last season to Jack Bauer’s hunt for suitcase nukes in Los Angeles.

    Government officials have played up the threat, too.

    Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., once said at a hearing that he thought the least likely threat was from an intercontinental ballistic missile. “Perhaps the most likely threat is from a suitcase nuclear weapon in a rusty car on a dock in New York City,” he said.

    In a FEMA guide on terrorist disasters that is posted in part on the White House’s Web site, the agency warns that terrorists’ use of a nuclear weapon would “probably be limited to a single smaller ‘suitcase’ weapon.”

    “The strength of such a weapon would be in the range of the bombs used during World War II. The nature of the effects would be the same as a weapon delivered by an intercontinental missile, but the area and severity of the effects would be significantly more limited,” the paper says.

    The genie that escaped
    During the 1960s, intelligence agencies received reports from defectors that Soviet military intelligence officers were carrying portable nuclear devices in suitcases.

    The threat was too scary to stay secret, government officials said, and word leaked out. The genie was never put back in the bottle.

    But current and former government officials who have not spoken out publicly on the subject acknowledge that no U.S. officials have seen a Soviet-made suitcase nuke.

    The idea of portable nuclear devices was not a new one.

    In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. made the first ones, known as the Special Atomic Demolition Munition. It was a “backpack nuke” that could be used to blow up dams, tunnels or bridges. While one person could lug it on his back, it had to be placed by a two-man team.

    These devices never were used and now exist — minus their explosive components — only in a museum.

    Following the U.S. lead, the Soviets are believed to have made similar nuclear devices.

    Suitcase nukes have been a separate problem. They attracted considerable public attention in 1997, thanks to a “60 Minutes” interview and other public statements from retired Gen. Alexander Lebed, once Russia’s national security chief.

    Lebed said the separatist government in Chechnya had portable nuclear devices, which led him to create a commission to get to the bottom of the Chechen arsenal, according to a Center for Nonproliferation Studies report. He said that when he ran the security service, the commission could find only 48 of 132 devices.

    The numbers varied as he changed his story several times — sometimes he stated that 100 or more were missing. The Russians denied he was ever accurate.

    Even more details emerged in the summer of 1998, when former Russian military intelligence officer Stanislav Lunev — a defector in the U.S. witness protection program — wrote in his book that Russian agents were hiding suitcase nukes around the U.S. for use in a possible future conflict.

    “I had very clear instructions: These dead-drop positions would need to be for all types of weapons, including nuclear weapons,” Lunev testified during a congressional hearing in California in 2000, according to a Los Angeles Times account.

    Naysayers noted that he was never able to pinpoint any specific location.

    In a 2004 interview with the Kremlin’s Federal News Service, Colonel-General Viktor Yesin, former head of the Russian strategic rocket troops, said he believes that Lebed’s commission may have been misled by mock-ups of special mines used during training.

    Yesin believed that a true suitcase nuke would be too expensive for most countries to produce and would not last more than several months because the nuclear core would decompose so quickly. “Nobody at the present stage seeks to develop such devices,” he asserted.

    Some members of Congress remained convinced that the suitcase nuke problem persists. Perhaps chief among these lawmakers was Curt Weldon, a GOP representative from Pennsylvania who lost his seat in 2006.

    Weldon was known for carrying around a mock-up of a suitcase nuke made with a briefcase, foil and a pipe. But it was nowhere near the weight of an actual atomic device.

    Majidi joined the FBI after leading Los Alamos National Laboratory’s prestigious chemistry division. He uses science to make the case that suitcase nukes are not a top concern.

    First, he defines what a Hollywood-esque suitcase nuke would look like: a case about 24 inches by 10 inches by 12 inches, weighing less than 50 pounds, that one person could carry. It would contain a device that could cause a devastating blast.

    Nuclear devices are either plutonium, which comes from reprocessing the nuclear material from reactors, or uranium, which comes from gradually enriching that naturally found element.

    Majidi says it would take about 22 pounds of plutonium or 130 pounds of uranium to create a nuclear detonation. Both would require explosives to set off the blast, but significantly more for the uranium.

    Although uranium is considered easier for terrorists to obtain, it would be too heavy for one person to lug around in a suitcase.

    Plutonium, he notes, would require the cooperation of a state with a plutonium reprocessing program. It seems highly unlikely that a country would knowingly cooperate with terrorists because the device would bear the chemical fingerprints of that government. “I don’t think any nation is willing to participate in this type of activity,” Majidi said.

    That means the fissile material probably would have to be stolen. “It is very difficult for that much material to walk away,” he added.

    There is one more wrinkle: Nuclear devices require a lot of maintenance because the material that makes them so deadly also can wreak havoc on their electrical systems.

    “The more compact the devices are — guess what? — the more frequently they need to be maintained. Everything is compactly designed around that radiation source, which damages everything over a period of time,” Majidi said.

    Proving a negative
    A former CIA director, George Tenet, is convinced that al-Qaida wants to change history with the mushroom cloud of a nuclear attack. In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a statement called “The Nuclear Bomb of Islam.”

    “It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God,” he said.

    Among numerous of avenues of investigation after the Sept. 11 attacks, Tenet said in his memoir that President Bush asked Russian President Vladamir Putin whether he could account for all of Russia’s nuclear material. Choosing his words carefully, Tenet said, Putin replied that he could only account for everything under his watch, leaving a void before 2000.

    Intelligence officials continued digging deeper, hearing more reports about al-Qaida’s efforts to get a weapon; that effort, it is believed, has been to no avail, so far.

    But intelligence officials are loath to dismiss a threat until they are absolutely sure they have gotten to the bottom of it.

    In the case of suitcase nukes, one official said, U.S. experts do not have 100 percent certainty that they have a handle on the Russian arsenal.

    ‘Like SUV-sized’
    Laura Holgate, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, says the U.S. has not appropriately prioritized its responses to the nuclear threat and, as a result, is poorly using its scarce resources.

    Much to many people’s surprise, she noted, highly enriched uranium — outside of a weapon — is so benign that a person can hold it in his hands and not face any ill effects until years later, if at all. It can also slip through U.S. safeguards, she says.

    The Homeland Security Department is planning to spend more than $1 billion on radiation detectors at ports of entry. But government auditors found that the devices cannot distinguish between benign radiation sources, such as kitty litter, and potentially dangerous ones, including highly enriched uranium.

    Holgate considers the substance the greatest threat because it exists not only at nuclear weapons sites worldwide, but also in more than 100 civilian research facilities in dozens of countries, often with inadequate security.

    Her Washington-based nonproliferation organization wants to see the U.S. get a better handle on the material that can be used for bombs — much of it is in Russia — and secure it.

    The big problem, she said, is not a fancy suitcase nuke, but rather a terrorist cell with nuclear material that has enough knowledge to make an improvised device.

    How big would that be? “Like SUV-sized. Way bigger than a suitcase,” she said.


  19. @Technician

    Is the George Tenet mentioned in this article the same person who misguided for Secretary of State Colin Powell when he read to the UN assembly what was identified after as a post-grad thesis?

    What maybe germane to the discussion and touched on by MME is the non-Islam region in which we live and how Islam laws currently conflict with Western civilization and religions. Yes it is a fringe element on each side but to what extent given the balance of power in the world today can we have peace.


  20. in the real world the real people don’t
    necessarily fit into categories or boxes
    for sweeping generalisations to be made,
    but the global political shituation is
    another shady business all over again


  21. @MME, Once again, you have it all confused, distorted, and mixed up!

    I’ve given my personal testimony on BU already, and I personally like Paul and multitudes of others declare:

    “For I AM NOT ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for IT IS the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE who believes, for the Jew first and also the Greeks, (Gentiles) (Rom. 1:16). emphasis added.

    The most profound *peace* joy and purpose for living, that I’ve EVER experienced, has come from knowing The Lord Jesus Christ AS my personal Saviour and Lord, nothing in this secular, humanistic world system, from my past life, can even remotely come close to His abiding Presence in my life, through the indwelling *Comforter* who leads, guides, teaches, etc, etc, none other than the Third Person of the Eternal Godhead, The Holy Spirit.

    You are obviously confused with the Biblical imperative, to:

    Contend For the Faith

    “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you EXHORTING you to CONTEND *earnestly* for the faith (body of doctrinal truth) which was ONCE for all delivered to the saints.”

    “For certain men have crept in un-noticed, who long ago were marked out for this *condemnation*, ungoldly men, who turn the grace of our God in lewdness and deny the Only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1: 3-4).

    And the ‘peace’ of our Lord, that accompanies those who are in the most profound battle, (spiritually) especially, as this Age comes to a close, with the *forces* of darkness, arrayed against the Kingdom of God, and any Christian that really means business, taking a stand, and ‘contending’ for the *faith* WILL be subjected to severe persecution, which IS going on in many countries around the world, right NOW!

    I can assure you, MME, you have NO idea what I am talking about, this IS where the ‘rubber’ meets the road, as the Word of God exhorts us to be ready for this battle:

    The Whole Armor of God

    “Finally, my brethren, be STRONG in the Lord and IN the power of His might.”

    “Put on the whole armor of God that you may be able to stand AGAINST the wiles of the devil.”

    “For we DO NOT wrestle *against* flesh and blood, but *against* principalities, *against* powers, *against* the rulers of the DARKNESS of this age, *against* spiritual hosts of *wickedness* in the heavenly places.”

    “Therefore, take UP the whole armor of God, that you may be able to *withstand* in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” (Eph. 6: 10-13) emphasis added.

    Notice that the preposition *against* is used 5 times, and ‘withstand’ (anthistemi). Compare ‘antihistamine’ from ‘anti’ *against* and ‘histemi’ ‘to cause to stand.’ The verb suggest vigorously, opposing, bravely resisting, standing face-to-face AGAINST an adversary, standing your ground. Just as ‘antihistamine’ puts a block on ‘histamine’ antihistamine’ therefore tell us that with the authority of Almighty God, and His spiritual weapons granted to us, that we can ‘withstand’ evil forces.

    Spiritual Warfare

    In this teaching and instructive narrative from God’s Word in Ephesians 6: 10-18, Paul admonishes us to put on the whole armor of God in order to *stand against* the forces of hell. It is clear that our warfare is not against physical forces, but *against* invisible powers who have clearly defined levels of authority, to a real, though invisible, sphere of activity, WHICH are then activated, IN the physical realm, through those that Satan instigates, to War and Fight *against* Christians who stand up for the Gospel of Christ, regardless of the persecution we endure. Paul, however, not only warns us of a clearly defined structure in the invisible realm, but, he instructs us to take up the whole armor of God in order to maintain a ‘battle stance”. All of this armor is not just a ‘passive’ protection in facing the enemy, it IS to be used offensively against these Satanic forces. Note, however, Paul’s final directive, we are to be “praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit.” (v.18) Thus, prayer is not so much a weapon, or even part of the armor, as it is the means by which we engage in the battle itself, and the purpose for which we are armed. To put on the armor of God is to prepare for battle. Prayer is the battle itself, with God’s WORD being our chief weapon employed against Satan during our struggle.

    This IS what I stand for, and fight against every day, with the Grace, Peace, and purpose of God, as so clearly given in His Word, the Bible. You cannot have one without the other!


  22. What I just read above by Zoe is touching…….could have been written by a Jihadist…lol.


  23. MME

    so you are a “true’ Christian (presumably). I take it that you follow only the ‘principal’ teachings of the Bible and to ignore those other pesky teachings (admittedly) of the Old testament which call inter alia for the pursuit of Hebrew power. Yet a major player of Christianity said that he hadn’t come to change a thing regarding the OT but to fulfill it. Go figure.


  24. John Lennon said it best in his song “Imagine”:

    Imagine there’s no Heaven
    It’s easy if you try
    No hell below us
    Above us only sky
    Imagine all the people
    Living for today

    Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace

    You may say that I’m a dreamer
    But I’m not the only one
    I hope someday you’ll join us
    And the world will be as one

    Imagine no possessions
    I wonder if you can
    No need for greed or hunger
    A brotherhood of man
    Imagine all the people
    Sharing all the world

    You may say that I’m a dreamer
    But I’m not the only one
    I hope someday you’ll join us
    And the world will live as one


  25. @ Technician
    Don’t worry Zoe’s sword and bible phrases
    are just figurative and dramatical not literal.


  26. @ Kiki

    Isn’t this the way it all starts?!?


  27. @ Technician
    calm down I checked google
    The name Zoe, derives from the Biblical scripture John 10:10 that reads “The … Greek language meaning “Life”, It was originally used in the Bible as a word that … Etymology: The name Zoe originates from the Greek word meaning ‘life’ …

    http://www.helium.com/knowledge/134834-behind-the-name-zoe


  28. In Ephesians 6: 10-18, as Paul was certainly accustomed to and well familar with the Roman soldier’s armor, being chained for some three years, he uses the ‘Armor’ of a Roman soldier, metaphorically, in describing the armor of Almighty God, given to the Christian:

    “Stand therefore, (in view of the arguments made in vv. 10-13) having girded your waste with the TRUTH, having put on the *breastplate* of righteousness (ton thoraka tes dikaiosunes), (v.14) Old word for breast and then breatplate. Same ‘metaphor’ of righteosness in I Thess; 5:8).

    “And having shod your feet with the preparation of the Gospel of *peace*” Readiness of mind that comes from the gospel whose message IS PEACE.” (v.15)

    “Above all, taking the shield of *faith* with which you will be able to quench all the firery darts of the wicked one.” (v.16).

    “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, WHICH is the Word of God.” (v.17). Heb. 4:12, where the Word of God is called “sharper than any two-edged sword.

    The sword of the ‘Spirit’ which IS the Word of God, the Bible, is an offensive weapon, the others are defensive.

    Complete ‘armor’ in this period of Roman history, included “shield” sword, lance, helmet, greaves, and breastplat” Paul omits the lance (spear)

    And as alluded to earlier, verse 18, “Praying always with all prayer, (At all seasons (en panti kairoi). “On every occasion,” Prayer IS needed in this fight. The panoply of God IS necessary, (the full armor) BUT, so is prayer. “Satan trembles when he sees The weakest sain upon his knees.”


  29. @MME, BTW, as someone who claims to be a Christian, how many people, have you ever ‘led’ to Christ, while sharing with them, the Gospel of the ‘good news’?

    By ‘led’ I mean explaining from the Word of God, the necessity of being ‘Saved’ ‘Justified’ in order to ‘know’ that one has the ‘Gift’ of Eternal life, freely offered to ALL men, everywhere, by, in, and through Jesus’ atoning death on Calvary!


  30. Amazing Jesus


  31. For those of you still replying to Dictionary (aka kairosfocus, aka Gordon Mullings), I suggest you take a look at his ability to produce prodigious nonsense at places like Uncommon Descent. He never admits error, even when his nose is rubbed in it, and never, ever stops posting. Pat him on the head like a good little bot and save your intellectual energy for a worthwhile discussion partner.


  32. This made for some interesting reading….


    Religious threat to freedom

    published: Sunday | October 15, 2006

    Ian Boyne, Contributor

    Many persons have been expressing genuine worry for my life now that I have taken a strong stand against Islamic fanaticism, with some Christians saying that they are praying for my safety. But some Christians have also been offended by what they see as my lumping together Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalists.

    There is no moral equivalence between the two, they insist. And, of course, I never suggested that. But what I have maintained is that the Christians are also prone to bigotry, intolerance and the desire to impose their will on others just as the Islamic militants. The Christians have been more restrained in establishing their Kingdom of God on earth not because that desire has extinguished among them but because they live in secular states which have long disposed of the concept of the Divine Right of Kings and other theocratic notions.

    Yet have no doubt that there are strong currents of theocracy among Christians, not the least among groups like the Moral Majority and other right-wing Christian groups in the United States. There is also a militant, activist group of Christians in America and other places who believe that secularism has too much of a hold over people and that it is time that the disciples of Christ rise up and establish the kingdom, taking back from the devil what he has stolen.

    They are not willing to use violence as the Islamic militants and jihadists, but in their Christian hearts burns the same passion for righteousness and divine justice that well up in the hearts of the Wahabists. Some Christians have been saying on a website that I have been distorting history by ascribing to secularism the birth of the concept of freedom when that glory should rightly go to Christianity.

    Missing the point

    The Christians have missed the point I have made. The issue is not whether, as the people on the Kairos website point out, the concept of personal freedom came from early Christians or from Christian philosophy. Professor Orlando Patterson has, indeed, demonstrated in his book Freedom that Pauline Christianity did play a pivotal role in establishing the concept of personal and individual freedom. But Gordon Mullings, well-meaning but with a surfeit of zeal over knowledge, implies that there is a necessary conflation between theology and action.

    The fact that Christian theology or philosophy posits something does not automatically translate into Christian practice. How do Gordon Mullings, Shirley Richards et al explain the fact that the Christian Church – for that’s what it was, not some fringe group – carried out such dastardly acts in the Middle Ages? How do they explain the Crusades, the forcible Christianisation of nations, the brutal imposition of sectarian rule over people? Merely dismissing the dominant church as “the Biblically illiterate Christianity of the Middle Ages” (as Mullings does) is disingenuous and would leave the historically challenged with the view that one was referring to some fringe group in the Middle Ages.

    Succumbing to the normal Protestant temptation – historical amnesia – Mullings glorifies “the world that resulted from having the Reformation sola scriptura principle” in putting the Bible in the hands of the ordinary man: liberation.” Mullings does not mention – or does he not know? – that Luther and the early Reformers eventually became some of the biggest persecutors of other Christians who did not follow their particular version of Christianity. Luther spoke in the most contemptuous and vehement ways about his opponents, displaying a spirit of intolerance at the liberty exercised by others who had been reading the Bible differently. The fact is that despite the fact that the Bible does place – from Old to New Testament – a strong emphasis on individual liberty, if secular society did not place as strong an emphasis on pluralism and democracy, there are Christians, not just on the fringe, who would seek to establish their version of God’s rule on the rest of us. The desire to establish a theocratic system is not just limited to evil Middle Ages Christians.

    If the secularists and the forces of democracy were not as strong in America, people like Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and James Dobson would set up a Fundamentalist Christian state in America that would suppress the freedoms of non-Christians. They read the same Bible which Gordon Mullings, Shirley Richards and others read as giving the blueprint for individual liberty, respect for individual conscience etc., but those passages would all be interpreted to suit their theocratic designs.

    Narrow-mindedness

    We must simply face up to the dangers and pitfalls of the fundamentalist mindset. This is not to suggest that fundamentalism is evil or even necessarily misguided. But it is to acknowledge that it is usually associated with narrow-mindedness, bigotry, intolerance and sometimes mean-spiritedness. And often with a persecution complex.

    Shirley Richards is right that the struggle of some Christians against the dominant church and for respect for individual conscience was crucial in the struggle for freedom in the West. But remember, the Bible has been used by both the oppressor and the oppressed for their causes. Because of the pliable nature of the Bible -or the Bible’s being used that way – it must be admitted by Christians freely that fellow believers are not immune to the temptation to establish a Christian state.

    Would it be okay for a Christian Prime Minster to ban horseracing, the lotto and carnival on Sunday even if the majority population has no problem with such practices? I am a firm believer in pluralism and I believe that a secular state better protects freedom of conscience than any religious state. Whenever people hold totalist views-such as Marxism, Salafism, Christian Fundamentalism, Mormonism, old-style conservative Catholicism – there is always the temptation to minimise the freedom of people who are outside that ideology.

    Castro still refuses to allow his people to hear broadcasts emanating from the United States; still disallows their free subscriptions to Western magazines and won’t allow people absolute freedom to travel because he has a totalitarian ideology which assures him that scientific socialism is right and competing ideologies are non-scientific and, therefore, wrong.

    Various Muslim Sheikhs hold to their rigid interpretation of the Koran and if they could get political power from the secularists who hold power in certain Muslim societies, they world impose their narrow view on the populace.

    Sunnis have no problem imposing their rule on Shias and vice-versa.

    Secularist impulses

    Christians might have been in the forefront of early struggles to establish freedom, and the Protestant Reformation was certainly a catalyst but we cannot underplay the significance of secularist impulses in cementing the culture of freedom and democracy.

    And those who write and talk glibly about Christians being necessarily worlds apart from the Muslims in terms of behaviour and ideology must remember that the history of Islam is not uniformly one of violence and mayhem. We must not do a disservice to history and truth by caricaturing Islam as being just coterminous with violence, terror and intolerance.

    In his book What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (2002), the esteem historian Bernard Lewis reminds of the contributions of Islam to Western civilisation.

    “For many centuries the world of Islam was in the forefront of human civilisation and achievement. In the Muslims’ own perception, Islam was, indeed, coterminous with civilisation…It had achieved the highest level so far in human history in the arts and science of civilisation … In most of the arts and sciences of civilisation, medieval Europe was a pupil and in a sense a dependent on the Islamic world, relying on Arabic versions even for many otherwise unknown Greek texts.”

    This is not known to many persons who only know about the terrorist actions and barbaric intolerance of rable rousers on the Arab streets-not representing all Muslims today.

    A fascinating book which is a must-read for those ignorant of the Islamic contribution to Western civilisation and Western scholarship is Professor Richard Rubenstein’s 2003 book Aristotle’s Children: How Christians, Muslims and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Dark Ages.

    Says Rubenstein: “Aristotle’s work, like the rest of Greek culture, had been lost in the centuries after the fall of Rome when the Greek language was forgotten. But in the Muslim world, the wisdom of the Greeks was never lost and contributed to the flowering of Islamic culture.

    Then in the twelfth century in Toledo, Spain, groups of Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars collaborated on translating the ancient classics; and ideas long forgotten galvanised Europe, turning Western thinking away from the supernatural world and toward the world of nature”.

    Religions are capable of transforming themselves or of being corrupted by practitioners or adherents. In religion there is a vast difference between the ideal and the real. So making the point about what the ideology of Christianity advocates and the proclivities of living breathing Christians is not one and the same thing.

    Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email ianboyne1@yahoo.com


  33. @Rasputin, Your inept comments re Dictionary, and his postings on Uncommon Descent, are void of rational sense. Your obvious bias towards ID, clearly implies who you consider to be your ancestors to be!

    Those scientist who attack ID, without any sound basis in true science, have a philosophical ideology of rampant atheism, couched, veneered, convoluted in a maze of pseudo-scientific jargon, which then continues to deceive many, who have not taken the time to examine the ID arguments, the preponderance of which overwhelmingly refute naturalistic origins of life!


  34. Ian Boyne, as quoted in ‘Religious threat to freedom’ is sadly mistaken like so many others, in identifying Roman Catholicism, whose despotic rule during the Middle Ages, or more appropriately, ‘The Dark Ages’ WAS the Church of Jesus Christ! NO! NO! NO!

    Roman Catholicism has NEVER being, currenty IS NOT, nor will it EVER be part of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

    Roman Catholicism, alias Paganism, IS the most wicked, evil, religious political/political institution to ever exist on planet earth; and has masqueraded under the banner of Christianity for 1600 years, committing the greatest acts of evil, claimimg to represent Christ, utter unbiblical nonsense.

    The Crusades, the forciable Christianization of nations, the brutal impostion of secular rule, alluded to by Boyne, not to mention the Spanish Inquisition, were all carried out by ‘The Whore of Revelation, the mother of Harlots, (see Rev. 17) none other than Roman Catholicisn, NOT the true Church of Jesus Christ.

    I know this subject, I WAS married in a Roman Catholic church at age 22 to a Catholic lady, almost became a Catholic, I was involved in the so-called Catholic Charismatic movement during the early 80s, my three children were/are devout Catholics, Catholicism destroyed my marriage, I’ve studied Catholicism intently for the past 20 years, Roman Catholocism IS NOT a Christian institution.

    Equating Catholicism with the ‘True’ Church of Jesus Christ, is like quating the Salvation Army, with the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra!


  35. …..and here they come…like moths to the flame!!


  36. @ Zoe……

    Put aside your obvious bias and stop taking the article out of context.

    Your are truly a spin doctor…..somebody say strawmen??

    Come on moths!!


  37. Ian Boyne, has wrongly misrepresented the the Biblical thrust of Christians like Jerry Falwell, Reed, Robertson, Dobson, and Gordon Mullings; as none of these men advocate, imposing or setting up ‘…a Fundamentalist Christian state in America.” That is simply not true.

    The heart of such Christians, is the preaching, teaching, of the Gospel of Christ, in the face of rampant secular materialism, humanisn, atheism, etc, that has over the decades wrecked the minds of many young people, where cultural and moral Relativism, where there are no moral absolutes any longer, anything goes, no such thing as right or wrong, Hedonism holds sway on the minds of many, reducing morality to feeling, omitting its rational ethical, social aspects, for providing no criteria to distinguish pleasures, higher or lower, worthy from unworthy, animal from spiritual, or to reconcile contradictory pleasures, or one person’s with another. Obligation being dissolved into desire, morality descends to expediency, and the pursuit of carnal pleasures controls so many.

    It, is therefore, against these godless trends in America, and elsewhere,and also, right here in Barbados, that these Christian Fundamentalists, speak out on against such decadant social ills, that’s destroying the very fabric of our historic Judeo/Christian principles, upon which Western civilization was built, birthed in and through the Protestant Reformation.

    The Turning Point of Modern History.

    The Reformation of the sixteenth century, is, next to the birth of Christianity, the first century Church, the Greatest Event in History. It marks the end of the despotic ‘Dark Ages’ (Middle Ages) and the beginning of modern times.

    It is a historic fact, that the Protestant Reformation gave directly or indirectly, a mighty impulse to every forward movement, and made Protestantism the chief propelling force in the history of modern civilization, a fact still not recognized by many.

    They refashioned the world from the innermost depths of the human soul, parched from the ‘Mediaeval Period (A.D. 590-1517) which also encompassed ‘The Middle Ages (A.D. 1049-1294), from Gregory VII, to Boniface VIII; the decline of the PAPACY and the preparation for Modern Christianity, from Boniface VIII, to Martin Luther (A.D. 1294-1517).

    The Protestant Reformation, was therefore preceded and NECESSITATED by the rampant corruption of the Papacy, the decline of monasticism and scholastic theology, the growth of mysticism, the revival of letters, the Greek and Roman classics, the inventing of the printing press, the discovery of the new world, and, the publication of the Greek New Testament, the general spirit of enquiry, the striving for independence and personal freedom. In both centuries (A.D. 33-100) and the sixteenth century, we hear the sovereign voice of Almight God calling LIGHT out of DARKNESS.

    At no time in the teaching or preaching of the Christian Fundamentalists cited by Ian Boyne, can you find a call for the imposition of a ‘theocratic’ state, in America, this IS what Boyne has read into their deep and abiding concern for the moral decline in almost every aspect of American society. These Christian men, fully understrand that there can be NO such theocratic rule, UNTIL the Lord Jesus Christ returns to earth, soon to be, to set up His sovereign rule in Jerusalem.

    BTW, the term ‘Fundamentalism’ as it has been applied to Christians, has been terribly misunderstood.

    The earliest phase involved articulating what was ‘fundamental’ to Christianity and initiating an urgent battle to expel the enemies of ‘Orthodox Protestantism’ from the ranks of the churches.

    The series of twelve volumes called ‘The Fundamentals (1910-15) provided a wide listing of those who deviated from the orthodoxy of historic Christianity (ca. 33) Romanism, socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Eddyism, Mormonism, spiritualism, and the like, but above all, liberal theology, which rested on a naturalistic interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, and German higher criticism and Darwinism, which appeared to undermine the Bible’s authority. The doctrines they defined and defended covered the whole range of traditional Christian teachings. They presented their criticisms fairly, with carful argument, and in appreciation of much that the opponents said.

    Therefore, the fundamentals of sound Biblical doctrine, i.e., The Inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, Christ’s bodily Resurrectiion, and the historicity of the miracles, were reaffirmed in 1916 and 1923, by which time they had come to be regarded as the ‘fundamental’ doctrines of Christianity itself.

    Hence, the term “Fundamentalist” was perhaps first used in 1920 by Curtis Laws in the ‘Baptist Watchman-Examiner’ but it seemed to pop up everywhere in the early 1920s as an obvious way to indentify someone who believed and activily defended the ‘fundamentals’ of the Christian faith.


  38. What is so unfortuante, and I dear say arrogant, is when journalist like Ian Boyne, and other here on BU, who obviously do not understand certain subject matter(s) have little or no formal education, training, qualifications in Bible or Theology, Church history, and all of the other related studies that are necessary and required in order to offer a valid critique, ( a critical essay or analysis), to discuss critically, such subjects, then pontificate in ‘ignorance’ (lacking understanding) of the issues.

    I do NOT venture, here on BU or otherwise, to offer any such critical analysis on, I.e., the FTC hearings on the BL&P rate case, as I am NOT familar with all that is required in order to be objective, on such matters, nor am I trained in the other areas of expertise that others have to voice a valid opinion. So, I try to listen to those who do, and learn quietly.

    BUT, this is not the case in point, Christianity, Islam, fundamentalists, and so on, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he/she has a voice, a valid opinion on a very complex subject matter, and those of us who have spent decades, studying, researching, earnestly and diligently, our Faith, vis-a-vis other competing ‘Truth-claims’ are shot down by the unlearned.

    No, man, it is you ‘unlearned’ that are the *moths* trying to come near the true *Light* and as you continue to reject the ‘truth’ the Light of the World, will burn you up!


  39. Think about all that you have just written and remove the veil of arrogance…you will see that you have just demonstrated all that the writer is trying to put across.

    I keep saying, if you have to study all this and that to understand the word of God then keep it. It is arrogant people like you and Dick ,who think because you have this ‘higher’ education, that you can look down on others and snob those who question you.
    For a man who was in the Catholic church (your own admission) before, as you say, you found the light, your arrogance towards us who are yet to find the light is unfortunate.
    You should always remember where you came from.


  40. Oh, I always remember where the Lord has brought me from, and His merciful, loving Grace in keeping me day by day, I am so grateful to Him, and those who helped me along the way.

    I have always had a believing heart first, then the ‘understanding’ knowledge followed on, came after.

    As Augustine’s dictum concerning the relationship of *belief* and authority to *reason* ‘Crede, ut intelligas’ “Believe in order that you may understand.”

    Credenda; singular, Credendum; literally, things to be ‘believed’ thus, beliefs, objects of belief, Christian doctrine.

    Or, as Anselm’s statement of his premise concerning the relationship of Faith and reason, from Proslogion 1; a conscious echo of Augustine’s Crede, ‘Credo ut intelligam’ I believe in order that I might understand.”

    Jesus never said, ‘Understand’ that you may be ‘Saved’ No, He said, ‘Whosoever *believeth* will be saved.

    Quantum credis, tantum habes: To the extent that you *believe* to that extent you possess; i.e., theology cannot be possessed by those who have no faith, reasonable faith, not blind faith!

    Not everyone is called to be a theologian, certainly not, as multitudes of simple, uneducated people from all walks of life, all over the world, have simply, ‘believed’ ‘trusted’ put their ‘faith’ in Jesus Christ, as Saviour and Lord, and found forgiveness of their sins, and the *peace* *joy* happiness and purpose to carry on, and the Glorious hope of Eternal Life through Jesus Atoning death, when they die from this side of their earthly existence.

    Also, many intellectuals, atheist, et al, have all come like little children, to Jesus for redemption, and found the same Peace, Joy and happiness in Christ, that the ordinary, simple person has found.

    The playing field is absolutely level, as;

    “For *All* have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23).

    Likewise:

    “For the wages of sin (penalty for all) is death, but the *gift* of God IS eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23) emphasis added.

    What is so hard in understanding this?


  41. Zoe…… That’s the truest sentence you’ve ever stated on this blog that “Western[white] ‘civilization’ was built on Judeo-Christian principles,” principles of GREED, LIES, THEFT, DECEIT AND MURDER! And today we are reaping the fruits, so enjoy them!


  42. Hopi….You would convolute any ‘truth’ for the sake of your perverted preception of reality!

    If you gave your daughter/son the very best of education, up-bringing, manners, and so on, do you have any guarantee that they would not become Drug addicts, criminals, and end up wayward from their up-bringing?

    The historic fact of the Reformation, regardless of your twisted perception of its reality, IS, that it brought, gave to mankind, literally turing points in history, re the first principles of Historic, Apostolic, first century Christianity, based entirely on the Word of God, delivering masses from the tyrannical, despotic bondage of Roman Catholicism, Popes and Kings, to freedom of civil liberty, personal freedom, democracy, education, the striving for independence, etc, etc, which simply cannot be denied.

    The sixteenth century was the age of the renaissance, REBIRTH of Apostolic Christianity, setting people and nations FREE for the first time, to express themselves, from the fear of Popes and Kings, who beheaded their very own kin.

    Yes, mankind always abuses these God given liberties, that through the Reformation He gave, and as time went on, corruptin, greed, lies, theft, deceit, etc became entrenched in Western civilization, and we are now paying the price for turning our backs into God’s face.

    As God IS no respector of persons, whoever flies into His face in rebellion, white, black, brown or yellow, will feel His wrath.

    The heart (of mankind) IS deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? (Only almighty God) I, the Lord search the heart, I test the mind. Even to give every man according to his ways; According to the fruit of his doings.” (Jer. 17:9).

    Hopi, you always have a problem seperating the ‘trees’ from the jungle! In so doing you’ll always fall into the ‘hole’ set for the Tiger!


  43. Folks

    I had to be away for over a fortnight, out of contact, visiting ailing parents.

    It was all too predictable that misinformation and undemining information would be circulated in my absence.

    1] Small nukes

    First, those who have thought the suitcase [or knapsack or footlocker] nuke is a mythical technology — so easily dismissed — should not allow themselves to be distracted by debates over Mr Lebed et al.

    The 280 mm nuke artillery shell of the 1950s – 1970’s provided proof enough of the viability of a two detonation point linear implosion design. Such a design was eventually engineered down to the 8 and 5 – 6 ” shell format; and a weight range that could be transported by a strong man with the proverbial suitcase.

    (Technician should leave physics to physicists: a 4.5 inch of so ball of Ploot is critical. 1.35 times critical mass, with inclusion of fusionable materials [basically isotopes of H], to give fusion boost gets you to the 1 – 10+ kton TNT near- Hiroshima bomb range easily enough, so to speak. As tot he Iranian capability, I was taught by the man who ran the Iranian nuke program in the Shah’s day; knowing him, his students would be fully capable of what is needed technically. The Iranian current announcement of building 10 HEU manufacturing sites makes plain their hostile intent. We have to face reality, and face it in light of what a maj Hasan armed with a suitcase could have done.)

    2] the immoral equivalency slander game.

    this is a sad case that shows the attitudes asd already long si9nce elaborated on.

    3] Mr Boyne

    I find it interesting that so many wish to cite a hit piece without looking at the all too telling context: Boyne was in effect seeking to justify the lewdness of certain j’can entertainers, and did so by slandering peaceable evangelical Christians in Jamaica.

    Onlookers, observe how the Gleaner’s correctives — cf the blog post here, also here and here (and onward links to a corrective article in that formerly great J’can newspaper) — were artfully omitted from the ad hominem post above.

    ++++++++++

    of course, the above posts I have had to briefly correct were put up by way of being distractive red herrings led out to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to poison, confuse and polarise the atmosphere.

    That should tell us a lot.

    G’day

    Dictionary


  44. PS: An abdridged version of the first corrective linked above, with the most disturbing content removed.

    THIS, Technician, was what was at stake, and I think you will see why Mr Boyne’s rhetoric as you cited above was utterly inexcusable, and should not be used by any decent person:

    ++++++++++++++

    On “Theocracy,” 12: Rom 1 – 2 & 13, liberty and the public vs. private spheres

    . . . . We sometimes refer to certain parts of our bodies as “private,” and as a rule will refuse to put these parts of our bodies on public display, through a sense of shame, or a commitment to modesty, or in some cases a fear of possible legal consequences.

    At the same time, the very existence of pornography, peeping toms, flashers, utterly immodest dress, indecent entertainment acts, date rape and prostitution tells us that there are those who take inappropriate pleasure or profit from the breaching of this barrier — often trying to make the claim that they are championing “liberty” as they do so. (In fact, we need to distinguish between liberty on the one hand, and licence, libertinism and amorality [often disguised as “tolerance” and “diversity”] on the other. For, as Rom 13:8 – 10 reminds us, neighbour-love does no harm. )

    Why, then, do we instinctively draw a line between the public and the private, and why is there a clash between shame and pleasure over its breach?

    . . . .

    For instance, we can observe that while some people will wear provocatively immodest clothing that suggests, presents and hints at their private parts, passions and sexual availability — and will champion publicly funded or displayed artwork that is far more prurient than that — the same people would as a rule be utterly embarrassed to be caught helplessly naked in the middle of a major traffic intersection.

    [In case the reader thinks this is a mere hypothetical, s/he might wish to consider the case of the publicly funded and controversial Redemption Song nude statue group at the corner of Oxford Road and Knutsford Boulevard in New Kingston, Jamaica; which is so posed as to put the exaggerated male and female pubic regions at the eye-level of passersby. (Note how — ever so tellingly! — one of the dismissers of moral concern has to ask passersby to “elevate their eyes to the expression of spiritual yearning and hope,” as noted here in a Florida newspaper report. That means that something that is usually regarded as intensely private, and in much larger than life size, has been put at eye-level and it obviously is not the upturned “spiritual” faces!) Moreover, it is not without relevance to note that: (1) this site was precisely the location of a public protest against the institution of Playboy porn channel Cable TV-sponsored mass nude weddings at Hedonism III in February 2001, and (2) in the Emancipation Park for which the statues were commissioned, at opening, not one historical monument to the history of emancipation, nor the Biblically rooted motivations of many of Jamaica’s heroes or ideal was to be found. Indeed, (3) major national symbols such as the Pledge, Motto, Coat of Arms, and Anthem were conspicuously absent. Not even the incorrect date of emancipation — 1838, much less the correct date — 1834, was to be found.]

    Or, getting back to the more sordid parts of our history raised by slavery, even the most immodest people would find themselves utterly humiliated to be put up, more or less naked, on an auction block and sexually inspected and commented on by interested buyers and bystanders as part of the “tomato-pinching” before being auctioned off to the highest bidder.

    In short, there is an obvious and vast, intuitively recognised difference between what is suitable for the privacy of the God-blessed marital bedroom or the doctor’s office, and what is appropriate for the public context — however much some may wish to play around with the borderline. Selective hyperskepticism about this, therefore only reveals an intellectually and morally indefensible agenda at work.

    The distinction between the public and the private spheres, clearly, also fulfills some very important protective — and even liberating — social functions:

    First, our children need a safe public space in which they can be appropriately stimulated and educated without fear of exposure to images, ideas, agendas and situations that they are neither mature enough to handle well, nor capable of defending themselves from.

    Second, through institutionalising modesty, in part through recognising, protecting (and sometimes subsidising) marriage and the family, society is able to promote the healthy rearing of the next generation, helping to preserve itself.

    Third, in light of the classic observation that men in particular are prone to leave a trail of havoc across a community through abusing physical, social and sexual prowess — witness the fact that rape is as a rule a crime committed by men — societies require several key institutional walls of protection.

    Fourth, since it is now common to encounter the notion that activist judges or legislatures can freely and safely decree at will that marriage needs not be reflective of the natural difference between men and women, it must be noted that not only is the heterosexual bond a basis for procreation and sound child nurture, but that the associated denigration of the limits of nature is not only physically unhealthy but also is fraught with implications for the fabric of protection of children in the community based on the public/private distinction.

    Fifth, we must never forget that liberty always has proper limits: my right implies your duty, given the basic fact that we are equals in nature under God, and so we have mutual obligations under the principle that neighbour-love does no harm. Nor, are we justified to assume or assert without further proof that lawful restrictions imposed by legitimate authorities that do not suit our preferences on public morality are to be derided and dismissed as oppressive impositions of “censorship,” without specific and good reason for such a conclusion.

    All of this speaks to a common voice of conscience-guided reason that whispers within, echoing, in turn, some telling but sometimes unwelcome insights from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, a now often unacknowledged foundational work for Western Culture as we know it:

    1:20 . . . since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse . . . .

    RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them . . . .

    2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the [written OT] law, do by nature things required by the law . . . 15 . . . they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

    In short, there is an intuitively recognised core of conscience-guided reason and awareness of the creation-based, morally conditioned nature of reality that leads us to God; if we would but listen. Sadly, we are instead tempted to suppress this as it is often inconvenient to our desired agendas, profits and pleasures. If we do so, we have no excuse and find ourselves victims of darkened understandings, benumbed consciences and out-of-control, sometimes perverted passions — leading to massive social disruption and disintegration. In turn, when anarchy reaches a critical point, as Germany in the 1930s showed convincingly, the public will accept tyranny on the hope that it will restore order. In short, once we ignore the moral context of liberty, it becomes suicidally self-destructive.

    So, in fact, the sort of inconsistency on the moral issue of modesty just highlighted is quite revealing on our core moral challenge: our willful, sinful alienation from our Creator. Such a rebellion easily leads us to proclaim that our bondages are our liberties and also to refuse to accept — especially when it cuts across our profits or pleasures — that it is a core criterion of sustainable liberty that we should we should do no harm to our neighbours. (Thus, in effect, we have now arrived at a core issue connected to our need to repent in light of the credibility of the Gospel; but that is a side-point relative to our current focus.)

    So now, we are in an excellent position to evaluate and respond to the sort of comment that Mr Boyne recently made, in portraying those he insists on smearing as “fundamentalists” in the following light:

    >> In Jamaica you encounter some mindless Christian fundamentalists who, if they had their way, would ban certain television programmes, certain movies and certain books and would even seek to impose dress-length standards on our women to fight the scourge of dancehall fashions. Don’t think it’s just the Taliban who has this kind of mentality. Talk to your fundamentalist, Bible-thumping neighbour and see how open-minded he or she really is. >> [Citing Boyne]

    First we observe the warning-sign of dismissive rhetoric and assertion of irresponsible [im]moral equivalency: mindless Bible-thumping fundamentalists more or less at the same moral level as the fanatical and oppressive Taliban of Afghanistan — as if the differences between Jamaican evangelicals and the like and the Taliban are not obvious, material and even vast. But more on the point, in light of the issue of the importance of distinguishing the public/private spheres and the issue of appropriate behaviour in the public sphere, issues of modesty are not automatically to be equated to censorship and oppression.

    Indeed, on the dance hall behaviour question, I once recall a case where videos of the audience at a public dancehall event were repeatedly shown for several days on my local access cable tv channel in Jamaica, at all hours of day and night.

    My wife drew my attention to it, and late one evening I took time to watch; only, to see an informal lewdness contest by a circle of women, “won” by one who shocked her companions by . . . When I complained to the management of the company, at first they were skeptical of my perceived attitude of “censorship,” but when I then explained in a bit more details than I will here, they at once indicated that this was unauthorised, and that they would have to act to see to it that such lewd and illegal public displays would never happen again on their channel. [Note how, in attempting to “justify” the mass nude weddings at Hedonism III, another commentator corroborates these observations here. Cf my objection to the now annual nude weddings event at the time it was started, here. I have now added a copy of this post to that page.]

    Plainly, given what is at stake at length, serious moral concern to defend public morality in the face of a subculture that evidently encourages public misbehaviour and associated immodest patterns of dress — is plainly warranted. [Recall here the case of Lady Saw and why she became controversial for lewd behaviour and indecent lyrics, especially what the Jamaica Observer calls “her signature crotch patting” which in the linked case led up to her “calling dancer Ice on stage who engaged a female patron in dry-humping.”] So, while we indeed need to be careful of the line between liberty and censorship, it is plain that obscenity has long been recognised as objectionable and actionable under law, for excellent reason. Similarly, morally concerned people — and this, classically, includes Bible-believing Christians — are well within their rights to object to and boycott immodest public [or even on-private-property “entertainment”] behaviour, speech, broadcasts, dress and yes even television programming that fall far short of legally actionable obscenity.

    In such a context, we are equally well within our rights to ask pointed questions on the underlying attitudes and motivation of very well informed public figures such as Mr Boyne, who — without adequately reckoning with serious concerns and issues such as the above — try to push those who raise such concerns into the same boat as Islamist terrorists and oppressors.

    For, that sounds a lot like bigotry and stirring up of misunderstanding, leading to unjustified resentment and hostility to me. For shame!

    ++++++++++

    Technician, you owe me and all decent people whom you misled by citing an utterly indefensible attack as though it was the last word, an apology.


  45. PPS: Nor, have I forgotten your violation of personal privacy, Technician.


  46. PPPS: Hopi, you might want to learn an often unknown bit from the actual history of the rise of modern liberty and democracy here. (And, if you wonder why the substance of the historic papers and state documents cited in the just linked is not well known from our education, you might want to look here. Yes, Western civilisation has its fair share of sins; it also is the first civilisation to give birth to general liberty and associated prosperity. You might want to learn why, and why that occurred when it did. Onlookers, you might want to look at what the denizens of the cave of shadow shows said they would do to the next liberator to come along.)

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading