It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no opposition to Islam nor creeping sharia in the U.S. If it can even be seriously stated that there is a war on terror by the government, it is not evident. It will be up to the people to save America before she is gone; destroyed from the inside by appeasers and dhimmis of the highest magnitude. The situation is much worse than any of us can imagine.
An unnamed panel at the National Press Club hosted by CAIR, the terrorist founded and unindicted co-conspirator to the Holy Land Foundation trial, entitled ‘Separating Religion from Terror: Implications for US Policy’ is evidence of such destitution. That the NPC would host a terror-related organization, despite having a code of Ethics that would readily eliminate CAIR, has come to be expected. The media, aligned with the multi-cultural, anti-American propagandists are complicit with the Islamists. Yet it is the propaganda, all too common from CAIR, spewing from such panels that influence members of groups like the Homeland Security Policy Institute that are frightening. Some quotes from this May 6th, 2008 event:
Frank Cilluffo, of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, said, “Some of our own terms don’t help. War on terrorism, to me, is the wrong metaphor. It’s not a war. It’s quite obvious we’re elevating the adversary to a status they don’t deserve.”
Appointed by President Bush, could Cilluffo and CAIR have been part of the team who wacked all forms of the word jihad from the front line vocabulary? Were 9-11, 7-7, and other events not an indication to the Homeland Security Policy Institute that Islamists are at war with the West? Are we not fucked?
All of the members of the panel agreed that Islam is the solution to terrorism and not the problem. Cilluffo asserts that long term sustained solutions have to come from within. “We need to see more Islamic scholars.”
Douglas Johnston, of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, “The best antidote for bad theology is good theology.”
When the Homeland Security Policy Institute believes that more Islam is the answer it seems they ignore what has happened in the Middle East where there is nothing but Islam. Islam hasn’t solved any problems there, how will it solve any problems here? More Islam will result in more appeasement of Muslims, more sharia law, and less freedoms. And while Johnston suggests a good v. bad theology antidote – he fails to note that all Islamic theology comes from the same sources, primarily the Quran. So is Islam a religion of peace or is Johnston revealing that there is bad theology in the Quran?
The panel goes on to blame Americans and the media for the issues of Islamic terrorism:
…they recognized the challenges ahead. Loose knit extremist organizations without a central leader, the American lack of understanding of how Muslims view freedom and religion, and the skewed media that we are presented with has made the job of those who seek peace and understanding among all people that much more difficult.
No central leader, but a central belief in Islam, and a central text – the Quran. Had such nonsense come from a foreign group it may not be so offensive, but then again, how many CAIR officials are foreign born? But why is the council on American islamic relations discussing foreign policy issues? They are supposedly a civil rights group focused on helping minorities in America. And don’t we know the Islamic view on freedom and religion? Isn’t it called sharia law? Continuing on their foreign policy appeasement, CAIR went on to state this:
[Parvez] Ahmed urged that we not shun political organizations..like Hamas…or Hezbollah…but to make them part of the civic process. “To bring extremists and people who are espousing political violence as a way of conflict resolution into a civic process, we have to encourage democratic and electoral processes,” said Ahmed. He added that they need to be part of the solution.
Again not surprising for a Muslim group with terrorist beginnings, but the influence this type of rhetoric seems to have with policy makers is astonishing. This is the same rhetoric we hear from Hamas and Hizbollah themselves as well as Barack Hussein Obama advisors, past and present. Should the terrorists preferred candidate, Obama, win the presidency, you can be sure similar panels will be meeting not only with CAIR, but with Hamas, Hizbollah, and other terrorist groups already present in the U.S.
We, the people, are the last line of defense and sanity. Read it all.
By Daniel Hayes
Muslim Link Contributing Writer
The Council on American-Islamic Relations hosted a panel discussion at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. As the title suggests, Separating Religion from Terror: Implications for US Policy, the goal of the discussion was to distinguish the slew of violent attacks sweeping across the geo-political field, and the radical ideologies that inspire them, from the tenets and foundations of the Islamic faith.
Two of the principle arguments touted were critical of the rhetoric used by the US administration on a semantic level.
Opposed to the declaration of a war on terror, CAIR chairman and North Florida University professor, Parvez Ahmed, claimed, “That by declaring a war, you are conferring warrior status to people who are essentially criminals.” Frank Cilluffo, of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, said, “Some of our own terms don’t help. War on terrorism, to me, is the wrong metaphor.
It’s not a war. It’s quite obvious we’re elevating the adversary to a status they don’t deserve.”
Ahmed, implicitly declaring a war on words found commonplace in American, and subsequently international, media that meld intrinsically Islam and terrorism, made clear his disdain for the association made between unwarranted violence and fundamentalism. “Extremism is a better descriptor [than fundamentalism] of this militant piety because it denotes the deviation from the normative teachings of the faith,” said Ahmed.
All of the members of the panel agreed that Islam is the solution to terrorism and not the problem. Douglas Johnston, of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, described a successful hostage negotiation he had with Taliban leaders that was mediated by a parliament style group of respected religious leaders in Afghanistan. “They sat down with open Qurans and within the first hour said, ‘when are you going to release the women,’ because it was against their religious principles.”
Cilluffo asserts that long term sustained solutions have to come from within. “We need to see more Islamic scholars. We’ve seen some positive programs overseas play a role in demonstrably showing how the extremists are taking the narrative out of context.”
Cilluffo identified the importance of having counter-narratives to contend with the radical ones of extremist organizations that use religious scriptures out of context in order to promote their own political agenda. “Once you expose the narrative itself, it will fall upon its own weight of inconsistency,” said Cilluffo. His words echoed those of Johnson who said, “The best antidote for bad theology is good theology.”
Although the panel was hopeful for reconciliation, they recognized the challenges ahead. Loose knit extremist organizations without a central leader, the American lack of understanding of how Muslims view freedom and religion, and the skewed media that we are presented with has made the job of those who seek peace and understanding among all people that much more difficult. “The media has focused disproportionately on the negative which has fostered a sense of paranoia and fear,” said Ahmed.
Muslim youth with access to the internet were identified as the most susceptible to being seduced by the inflammatory messages of radicals. Chat rooms in which beliefs are influenced and affirmed, that also offer a sense of connection for marginalized youth, were deemed more effective than web pages.
A poignant suggestion, drawn from the success of the stabilization and restructuring of Northern Ireland, was to include extremists in the political process. The world saw in 2007 the election of Protestant unionist hardliner, Ian Paisley as first minister, with Catholic Sinn Fein leader, Martin McGuiness, former Irish Republican Army member, as second minister.
Prior to the inclusion of right and left wing factions, moderates who drafted treaties without broad base support of the people would consistently be outflanked, making little to no political and social gains. The end of Britain’s 38 year occupation of Northern Ireland in 2005 helped ease tensions as well.
Ahmed urged that we not shun political organizations that legitimately win elections in their countries, like Hamas which was identified by the American government as a terrorist group, or Hezbollah which is part of the political process in Lebanon, but to make them part of the civic process. “To bring extremists and people who are espousing political violence as a way of conflict resolution into a civic process, we have to encourage democratic and electoral processes,” said Ahmed. He added that they need to be part of the solution.