Saturday, February 20, 2010

Obama's Jihad Friendly Envoy To OIC Lies, Then Backtracks...

My, oh my.

You'll recall the piece I did on Monday regarding White House lawyer Rashad Hussain, whom Obama picked as our ambassador to pander to the anti-Semitic and pro-jihad Organization of Islamic Conference.

As I revealed, Hussain's roots in the Salafist Muslim Brotherhood, the parent group of Hamas go way back. That includes major connections to the International Institute of islamic thought ( IIIT), a jihadist fund raising organization closely connected with our old friend Sami Al-Arian, a convicted terrorist who was Palestinian Islamic jihad's own man in America and formed a whole nest of budding jihadis at the University of South Florida.

Unfortunately, Hussain's Muslim Brotherhood connections aren't getting nearly as much attention as his outburst supporting Sami al-Arian, his referring to the Bush Administration's successful attempt to bring him to justice as a 'politically motivated prosecution' and his subsequent attempts to whitewash those remarks as he became more prominent in the White House staff.It was Hussain, by the way, who contributed a lot of the verbiage present in Obama's fictional recitation in Cairo on the glories of Islamic civilization, the myth of Islam's tolerance for other religions and what our Dear Leader termed its `centuries of co-existence and cooperation' with the West.

After initially denying the al-Arian remarks, Hussain finally fessed up, saying, “I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated.”

Amazing how he finally reached that conclusion now, after he was outed by the blogosphere. Just a coincidence.

Hussain also admitted that it was he that got the the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, an extremely pro-Arab, anti-Israel publication to edit the sentences that refer to Hussain and his pro-jihad statements out of the current online version.

However, what no one is mentioning aside from Hussain's long time Islamist connections is what's revealed by his co-authoring of a paper called "Reformulating the Battle of Ideas: Understanding the Role of Islam in Counterterrorism Policy" for the Brookings Institution with Al-Husein N. Madhany. For those of you who saw this in the previous piece, forgive the repetition....I'll translate as we go:

First, rather than characterizing counterterrorism efforts as “freedom and democracy versus terrorist ideology,” policymakers should instead frame the battle of ideas as a conflict between terrorist elements in the Muslim world and Islam.

( "Islam is a religion of peace. No need to get overly concerned about how they treat women, Jews, Homosexuals and Christians. Instead, we'll convince the Muslim 'street' that we're more Islamist than the jihadis!")

Second, policymakers should reject the use of language that provides a religious legitimization of terrorism such as “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamic extremist.” They should replace such terminology with more specific and descriptive terms such as “Al-Qaeda terrorism.”

( "Let's definitely continue not to call things by their right name.")

Third, the United States should seek to build a broad and diverse coalition of partners, not limited to those who advocate Western-style democracy, and avoid creating a dichotomy between freedom and Islamic society. Such a coalition should incorporate those who may have political differences, so long as they reject terrorism.

( "See point one. Thou shalt not tick off the Saudis, no matter what quaint beliefs they have that might not jibe with a free western society." )

Fourth, the United States should enlist the assistance of scholars of Islam and the Muslim world to determine how best to frame the mission of the global counterterrorism mission. Rather than framing the conflict as “pro-freedom” or “anti-Jihadist,” these scholars should analyze the most persuasive methods for applying Islamic law to reject terrorism.

( "We definitely need more Imams on the payroll. And of course, let them decide how best to deal with the Islamists. haven't they done a splendid job so far?")

Fifth, the United States should incorporate the Muslim community as well as scholars of Islam and of the Muslim world in the policymaking process to help craft policies that reflect a more nuanced understanding of those targeted.

("Nuke Israel and probably India. { I know, but Mom and Dad will love me for mentioning it}Then the Muslim umma will have absolutely nothing to be steamed about. ")

Sixth, the United States should promote and distribute scholarship such as the North American Muslims Scholars’ Fatwa against Terrorism and the Aal al-Bayt Institute’s anti-terrorism rulings, which carefully analyze issues such as the use of force in Islam and conclude that terrorism must be rejected unequivocally.

( "See point four. Oh, and realize that many Muslims have a slightly different definition of terrorism than you do..but, no worries, eh?" )

Seventh, recognizing the benefit of strengthening the authoritative voices of mainstream Islam, the United States should welcome and encourage the further development of mainstream Muslim organizations and moderate institutions.

( "That means CAIR, the MPAC and the Islamic Society of North America. We need more Wahabi mosques and sharia friendly zones in America, funded by the taxpayers." )

Finally, the United States should continue to promote effective economic and social reforms and to work with allies in crafting fair and peaceful resolutions to conflicts in the Middle East and in other parts of the Muslim world, as these conflicts are often the preeminent grievances fueling extremist violence.

("Like I said, nuke Israel and probably India, but especially Israel. Give us the Jews and we'll let you me! ")

There's really no doubt which was Rashad Hussain leans, especially if there was a conflict of interest between America's interests and the Muslim ummah's.

Essentially, we have a jihad friendly Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer now serving as a high- ranking White House official. Nor, obviously is he the only one.

The Obama administration hasn't even bothered to comment yet on whether Hussain's statements or what they've revealed are going to have any effect on his appointment.Instead, they're simply going to see if they can get away with it.

And that says volumes.

please helps me write more gooder!


Anonymous said...

Actually several others have discussed Hussain's Brookings paper - which is probably how you found out about it, yet you don't link to any of those sources.

Freedom Fighter said...

No, Anonymous, I didn't.

Instead, I linked directly to the paper itself, so people could make up their own minds.

So what's your point?

If YOU have a problem with my analysis, have a microbe of courage and argue your point with your real name and e-mail (instead of hiding behind 'anonymous').

That takes a bit more than relying on others to do it for you.