Muslim radicals often mistaken for friends
By Paul Sperry
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1295506&srvc=home&position=emailed
Official Washington has a dangerous knack for misreading Muslim friend and foe. Exhibit A is Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda leader suspected of masterminding the FedEx bomb plot and who in a video is calling for Muslims around the world to “kill the Americans.”
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon invited the U.S.-born imam to a luncheon with military brass even though he was an FBI suspect in the attack that had just killed almost 200 Pentagon workers.
Pentagon documents explain that the official who invited al-Awlaki was impressed by his “moderate” rhetoric. Years later, after al-Awlaki was linked to the Fort Hood massacre, the same official said she regretted arranging the meeting - her excuse being that al-Awlaki is “either a good liar or . . . later something happened . . . I don’t know.”
This happens far too often in Washington.
Indeed, the prosecution’s list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror trial showed that virtually every major Islamic organization in America had raised funds that had landed in the hands of terrorists.
The list of 246 Islamic entities and leaders features the three largest Muslim groups in the country: the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust (which owns most U.S. mosques) and the Council on American Islamic Relations - the No. 1 Muslim advocacy group in Washington.
The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR. Yet the bureau is still doing business with its sister group, ISNA.
There are moderate Muslims, but it’s not as simple as the “religion of peace” propagandists would have us believe. The 19 hijackers, for example, were deeply religious.
At least some of the media elite are still looking to find excuses for al-Awlaki. A New York Times [NYT] profile suggested he went bad only after America attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, he had closed-door meetings with at least two of the 9/11 hijackers in his mosque. He also had contacts with a procurement agent for Osama bin Laden.
CAIR loves to talk about “Islamophobia.” But the more dangerous problem is the “Islamo-schizophrenia” of our anti-terror policies.
We’re fighting Islamic terrorists in two Islamic countries, and we’ve seen a wave of homegrown Muslim terrorists within our own borders. Yet neither the Pentagon nor Homeland Security mention “Islam” or “Islamic terrorism” in their latest strategy papers.
In Cairo, President Obama “explained” that terrorism is at odds with Islam, since “The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he killed all mankind.”
But jihadists don’t consider us “innocent.” Obama left out a key part of the verse (5:32) that permits the Muslim faithful to kill anyone who spreads “mischief in the land” - which is defined in the next verse as “those who wage war against Allah.”
According to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, the likely source of that misleading quote was then-White House aide Rashad Hussain. Hussain is a Muslim activist with ties to fronts for the radical Muslim Brotherhood. He was caught on tape defending convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian.
Despite all that, Obama appointed him to be a U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Nine years after 9/11, we’re still not good at sorting out who the real moderates are.
Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration.” This column first ran in the New York Post.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon invited the U.S.-born imam to a luncheon with military brass even though he was an FBI suspect in the attack that had just killed almost 200 Pentagon workers.
Pentagon documents explain that the official who invited al-Awlaki was impressed by his “moderate” rhetoric. Years later, after al-Awlaki was linked to the Fort Hood massacre, the same official said she regretted arranging the meeting - her excuse being that al-Awlaki is “either a good liar or . . . later something happened . . . I don’t know.”
This happens far too often in Washington.
Indeed, the prosecution’s list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror trial showed that virtually every major Islamic organization in America had raised funds that had landed in the hands of terrorists.
The list of 246 Islamic entities and leaders features the three largest Muslim groups in the country: the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust (which owns most U.S. mosques) and the Council on American Islamic Relations - the No. 1 Muslim advocacy group in Washington.
The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR. Yet the bureau is still doing business with its sister group, ISNA.
There are moderate Muslims, but it’s not as simple as the “religion of peace” propagandists would have us believe. The 19 hijackers, for example, were deeply religious.
At least some of the media elite are still looking to find excuses for al-Awlaki. A New York Times [NYT] profile suggested he went bad only after America attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, he had closed-door meetings with at least two of the 9/11 hijackers in his mosque. He also had contacts with a procurement agent for Osama bin Laden.
CAIR loves to talk about “Islamophobia.” But the more dangerous problem is the “Islamo-schizophrenia” of our anti-terror policies.
We’re fighting Islamic terrorists in two Islamic countries, and we’ve seen a wave of homegrown Muslim terrorists within our own borders. Yet neither the Pentagon nor Homeland Security mention “Islam” or “Islamic terrorism” in their latest strategy papers.
In Cairo, President Obama “explained” that terrorism is at odds with Islam, since “The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he killed all mankind.”
But jihadists don’t consider us “innocent.” Obama left out a key part of the verse (5:32) that permits the Muslim faithful to kill anyone who spreads “mischief in the land” - which is defined in the next verse as “those who wage war against Allah.”
According to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, the likely source of that misleading quote was then-White House aide Rashad Hussain. Hussain is a Muslim activist with ties to fronts for the radical Muslim Brotherhood. He was caught on tape defending convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian.
Despite all that, Obama appointed him to be a U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Nine years after 9/11, we’re still not good at sorting out who the real moderates are.
Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration.” This column first ran in the New York Post.
ronstackhouse
? +1 0
Muslims will always be looked upon with great suspicion, hopefully we in the US will wake up and abandon the ridiculous ideals of Political Correctness and call Muslims out for what they are, sneaky, deceptive zealots. Even the "moderates" cannot be trusted as their silence in the wakes of terrorism is deafening.
? +1 0
Muslims will always be looked upon with great suspicion, hopefully we in the US will wake up and abandon the ridiculous ideals of Political Correctness and call Muslims out for what they are, sneaky, deceptive zealots. Even the "moderates" cannot be trusted as their silence in the wakes of terrorism is deafening.
onyourmark replying to migh
? 0 0
How come the President doesn't object? Do you think his time in Indonesia as a boy may play a role in his love affair with Muslims?
The President yesterday approved $150 million dollars, which we will have to borrow from China, be sent to the Palestinian Liberation Authority. Do you think that money could have been better spent extending unemployment benefits?
Does anyone see a pattern of behavior here by the President of disrespecting Israel and defending and funding the Muslims?
Take back our country from Obama, the Muslims, the Progressives and the Democrats in 2012 if it's not too late.
? 0 0
How come the President doesn't object? Do you think his time in Indonesia as a boy may play a role in his love affair with Muslims?
The President yesterday approved $150 million dollars, which we will have to borrow from China, be sent to the Palestinian Liberation Authority. Do you think that money could have been better spent extending unemployment benefits?
Does anyone see a pattern of behavior here by the President of disrespecting Israel and defending and funding the Muslims?
Take back our country from Obama, the Muslims, the Progressives and the Democrats in 2012 if it's not too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment