The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Catastrophic Failure: A Review, Part I

“What we’ve got here is failure to
communicate.”
Captain, Cool Hand Luke,
1967

In terms of understanding Islam, that would include
a failure, or an outright refusal, to grasp and integrate the truth about Islam
and its movers and shakers by especially those charged with the responsibility
of fighting the “War on Terror” and securing the safety of this country. Given
such a “war,” it is incumbent upon the government, the military, and
intelligence assessment agencies to “know the enemy.” As things stand now, in
their eyes Islam is not an enemy, but an “innocent” bystander upon which is
heaped the “calumny” of associating it with terrorism.
“Islamophobia” in Americans is more the enemy than
is the fearful enemy. Within that purgatory of purposeless analytical bean-counting
and sand-sifting is a startling and craven ignorance of the actual enemy,
enforced by post-modern, left-wing politically correct thought and speech while
the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation
stymie any meaningful investigation and intelligence
analysis by determining definitions and “red lines.”
And to paraphrase the Captain in Cool Hand Luke – the Captain, while a
villain, is certainly a quotable character – “Some men you just can’t reach.” The
men who can’t be reached have already submitted to Islam, and accepted the
“war” on Islam’s terms, and they are in our government. And they are not only
losing the war, but aiding in the enemy’s advance.
A single column review of Stephen Coughlin’s
vitally important Catastrophic
Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, would not do
justice to the book. I can only highlight some of the important, interlinked
and salient information presented by Coughlin. Therefore this review will run
to two or more columns. Coughlin’s book is literally vital, as vital as the
blood that courses through our veins. Catastrophic
Failure
brings to light everything we should know about Islam and its
advocates’ determined campaign to conquer the West, and especially America, and
impose Sharia law on the world – and everything our government has consistently
refused to know or evaded to a degree that amounts to criminal negligence.
Reading the book was a daunting and, I don’t mind
saying so, numbing task, numbing
because what Coughlin reveals in it vis-à-vis
what our government and the agencies, charged with protecting the country
against terrorism and the designs of foreign powers, refuse or are fatally
politically correct to learn, are not
doing to fulfill their legal and Constitutional mandates.
What Coughlin has assembled is a mountain of
information about the perilous deficiencies of our “warfighting” policies and
the “efficacy” of the Islamic Movement’s interlocking and integrated stratagems.
What he offers resembles a jigsaw puzzle about the size of a football field.
Straight off, in Part I, “The One Organizing Principle,” Coughlin identifies the enemy’s
overall tactical method of softening up America for the kill.
Official responses to terrorist acts have
“progressively become less reality-based,” writes Coughlin. “As the American
people grow more outraged, those professional and constitutionally tasked with
keeping them safe continue to lack awareness, understanding, and even
professional curiosity about the doctrines that drive enemy action.”
For
these enemies, the implementation of Islamic law – shariah – as the governing
law of the land is the objective. This is true not only for jihadi groups like
al-Qaeda, but also for dawah organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood
and ummah entities like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a transnational body
that makes reasonable claims to represent the ummah, or the entire Muslim
world.
The
catastrophic failure of American strategy in the War on Terror is the refusal
to contend with the convergence of these three forces (jihadi, dawah, and ummah), which, as this book will
explain, interact to our great detriment. (p. 26)
(From my Islamic Lexicon: Jihadi:
Of Jihad, of a belligerent nature in action; Dawa(h):  Proselytizing;
recruitment and/or conversion)
More
than a decade into the War on Terror, we should have a common understanding of
the common objectives of jihadi, dawah, and ummah forces in the Islamic world,
as their self-declared “organizing principle” also serves as their single
unifying and governing principle. As this book will make clear, such unity of
purpose is ubiquitous throughout the published doctrine of the self-described
Islamic Movement. This information is too important to ignore or preemptively
embargo. We can succeed only by honestly assessing it.

An idolized
Mohammad receiving from Allah the Qur’an, which is also a metaphor for Mohammad’s
sword, capturing perfectly the iconic mystic of muscle.

The “organizing principle” is Sharia Law  — or Islam, they are one and the same, with
Islam as the ideology, and Sharia as its rule book – which Coughlin mercilessly
dissects throughout. Everything comes back to Sharia and its enforcement
wherever Islam sets down roots and establishes its hegemony. Sharia has
governed every action taken by mobs of demonstrating Muslims, by synods of
Muslim theologians and intellectuals, by meetings of Islamic heads of state,
and  in the public relations and press
releases of the Council on America-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

In Islamic parlance, or a “logic” that is defined
by Sharia, to utter a negative truth about Islam is “wrong” and amounts to
“blasphemy.” In essence, internally within the confines of its own practice, truth
is irrelevant to Islam. For example, the term “terrorism” is applicable only if
one Muslim attacks another Muslim “without right.” Then it’s a heinous crime. Imams,
mullahs, and spokesmen for Islam assigned to “assist” American efforts in the
War on Terror have frequently lectured our intelligence gathering agencies,
including the FBI and the DHS, on the “inappropriateness” of linking terrorism
with Islam.
But a Muslim attacking an infidel – or any
non-Muslim – is “with right” because it is prescribed in Islamic texts as an
obligation. Killing infidels is not seen as “murder” but as an act of
legitimate jihad. Killing infidels,
within Islam’s measure of right and wrong, carries no moral approbation.
This, Coughlin points out, is the Catch-22 of the
government and military analysts; to associate Islam with terrorism is to
criticize the “religious’ nature Islam and its adherents, and this is now
forbidden.
Faced with knowledge which they would rather not
know, our “defenders” adopt a militant, obstinate policy of waffling, and even
of perjurious evasion when questioned about whether or not Islam has any
connection with terrorism or the slaughter of American civilians and military
personnel right here in the U.S.  Americans
are wary anymore of their government and cast doubt on its willingness or
capacity to defend them from the depredations of jihadist killers. Not being
privy to the special mentor-protégé relationship between our “defenders” and
the enemy, they have noticed a widening chasm between the government’s rhetoric
and reality.
 For example, it took a few days for the FBI to
acknowledge that the attack in San Bernardino on December 2nd that killed
fourteen people was an act of terrorism, a few more days to admit that the
perpetrators were Muslims, and then a few more days for it to reveal that the
killers had been engaged in a long-range plot to do what they did, with myriad
connections to known Islamic terrorist groups here and abroad. They were not
“lone wolf” actors who had “misinterpreted” Islam, but “foot soldiers” in an
ongoing campaign to terrorize the U.S. 
They were not “extremists,” but Muslim ciphers fulfilling their Koranic obligation to kill the kaffir,
even if it meant, ultimately, and as it turned out, dying themselves.
Coughlin reports, on page 354, in Part VII,
“Catastrophic Failures”:
In
October 2011, the DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties division released
government guidelines forbidding reference to Islam in presentations and
related work product. In keeping with the OIC’s Ten Year Programme of Action
[adopted in 2005], “Countering Violent Extremism Training Guidance & Best
Practices” formalized the CRCL’s aggressive campaign to counter Islamophobia.
“Islamophobia,” in the context of today’s ongoing
“violent extremism” of suicide bombers, knife attacks, and the mowing down of
people with automatic weapons, and so on, all committed by Muslims following
the path of the Koran, is completely
justified and a rational expression of fear of Islam or together with the
mockery of Islam and its icons in the face of its “religion of peace” mantra.
But it’s “Islamophobia” that the DHS, the FBI, and other agencies are more
concerned about, over naming the enemy and hurting his feelings.
In Part VII, “Catastrophic Failures,” Coughlin
warns, in the context of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied Islamic agencies
governing the language employed by our intelligence analysts in the War on
Terror:
…There
is no knowing this enemy without understanding their doctrine. We can lose a
war – and our country – for want of facts that could have been known had there
not been a policy decision to ignore and misrepresent them….
Today,
the Muslim Brotherhood dictates who does and does not do threat analysis for
the government on War on Terror issues. The Brotherhood also dictates what can
and cannot be discussed. This certainly fulfills key elements of any long-term
campaign oriented toward jihad fi
sabilillah
[jihad in the Cause of
Allah]. We ignore these realities at our peril. This is ignorance that kills.
[p. 367]
 In Catastrophic
Failure
the reader will learn:
Reason has no role in understanding Islam. Islam is
incomprehensible to Westerners – to those who, unlike our government, bother to
study it – and even to the brightest Muslim theologian.  Islam  is seen by its advocates as almost a “solid
structure,” a metaphysical entity, or entity that transcends existence or is
apart from existence. Allah himself has no form, human or otherwise, and like
the Koran, is timeless, having
existed before time itself, which Allah presumably created.  Myself, when I try to imagine Allah and the Koran having existed before time (which
is a contradiction, of course, but what need of causation has Islam?), I keep recalling
some of the most outlandish episodes of Star
Trek
. Coughlin cites a passage from a definitive Islamic text, Reliance
of the Traveler
,
about Allah’s attributes:
W8.0
Allah is Exalted above Needing Space and Time.
W8.1
Muhammad Hamid: What is obligatory for a human being to know is that Allah the
Creator…is absolutely free of need (al-Ghani)
of anything He has created, and free of need for the heavens and or the earth.
His is transcendently beyond “being in the sky” or “being on earth” in the
manner that things are in things, created beings in created beings….Allah Most
High is absolutely beyond any resemblance to created things, in His entity,
attributes, and acts. (p. 225)
Which more or less casts Allah in the form of a pulsating,
formless, faceless, featureless,  volitional
glob of energy, however conscious and able to cause things and events causelessly.
This is the stuff of childish fantasy and magic, albeit an extremely malign
form of fantasy subscribed to by the ummah,
or the whole adult Muslim population. As it is a beheading offense to portray
Mohammad in any form, it is unthinkable to Muslims to give Allah any kind of
recognizable form or identity. Arguing with a Muslim about the truth or
falsehood of Islam – or  the existence of
Allah, the historical existence of Mohammad, or even the veracity of the Koran, which I contend was cobbled together
by scribes and Islamic theologians over centuries, borrowing piggishly from Judaic,
Christian, and pagan creeds – is basically futile, because you will be led in concentric
circles by his circular logic, and he will probably wind up stabbing you.
To underline the magnitude of hubris of the Islamic
Movement in the U.S., CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation
case and linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, in 1997 requested that the
statue of Mohammad be removed from the Supreme Court frieze, or at least sanded
down so it would not be recognizable. The
Supreme Court
building was finished in 1935. The bas-relief figures were sculpted
by Adolph A. Weinman. There are eighteen of them. The south wall depicts Menes,
Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian,
while the north wall depicts Napoleon Bonaparte, John Marshall, William
Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Justinian…and
Mohammad.
Why would CAIR object to Mohammad being in such
illustrious company?
1. Islam discourages its followers
from portraying any prophet in artistic representations, lest the seed of idol
worship be planted.
2. Depicting Mohammad carrying a
sword “reinforced long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant
conquerors.”
3. Building documents and tourist
pamphlets referred to Mohammad as “the founder of Islam,” when he is,
more accurately, the “last in a line of prophets that includes Abraham,
Moses and Jesus.”
The most laughable objection was the reference to
the sword because it insinuated that Mohammad was in intolerant conqueror. That
is not a stereotype. The Koran and
the Hadith revel in the prophet’s
intolerance, butchery, rape, murder, and conquest. If it is a “stereotype” of
Mohammad and Muslims it is one perpetuated by Islam’s most sacred documents. If
CAIR objected so much to the presence of a sword on Mohammad’s person, I think
its spokesmen would have been hard pressed to explain the presence of crossed
swords in the Brotherhood’s emblem and in other Islamic organizations’ emblems and
symbols. More than that, no one knows what Mohammad, if he existed, really
looked like.
Then-Chief
Justice William Rehnquist dismissed CAIR’s objections, saying that the
depiction was “intended only to recognize him [Mohammad] … as an
important figure in the history of law; it was not intended as a form of idol
worship.” He also reminded CAIR that “words are used throughout the
Court’s architecture as a symbol of justice and nearly a dozen swords appear in
the courtroom friezes alone.”
Part II of this review of Catastrophic Failure will touch on Coughlin’s explication of the
roles of Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
in the emasculation of America’s power to defend itself from “civilization
jihad. If there is a “failure to communicate” the peril in which America finds itself, it is not Stephen Coughlin’s failure.
Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, by Stephen
Coughlin. Washington DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

Previous

Islam in Contemporary Fiction

Next

Catastrophic Failure: A Review, Part II

5 Comments

  1. blnelson2

    Re: the CAIR request to the Supreme Court to remove or deface the depiction of Mohammed, and it first explanation that "Islam discourages its followers from portraying any prophet in artistic representations, lest the seed of idol worship be planted." I think Justice Rehnquist could have noted that neither the builder nor the Court were/are "follower[s]" of Islam.

  2. Edward Cline

    Barbara Nelson: He could have noted that, but this was long before Islam was as big a topic as it is now so he may not have been as knowledgeable of Islam at the time. This was the year also that CAIR set up shop, and its "request" was possibly a testing of the waters of submission to Islam's demands for compliance with Sharia.

  3. Ed

    Poor Rehnquist. He should have acceded to CAIR's demands. If there is an historical figure that does not belong in such august company, it was the murderous, rapacious, LAWLESS Mohammed.

  4. revereridesagain

    If Ed Cline's excellent review of the first part of Coughlin's "Catastrophic Failure" doesn't impel you to get the book, take an hour or so to watch this presentation of Coughlin's "Red Pill Brief" video. If this doesn't make your hair stand up on end, I don't know what will. Here's the link to the presentation he gave in Austria in 2015:

    http://vladtepesblog.com/stephen-coughlin-red-pill-brief-all-10-videos/

    And another version of the RPB, this one given in Ottawa, Canada, on September 17th.

    http://vladtepesblog.com/stephen-coughlin-ottawa-brief-sept-17-2015/

  5. blnelson2

    BTW – Thank you Ed Cline for a masterful presentation.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén