White House invites deputy of banend cleric to WH to meet with MSC team.

[Streck-Fu]

WTF? Seriously, WTF? LINK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348479/EXCLUSIVE-Deputy-banned-suicide-bomb-endorsing-cleric-Yusuf-al-Qaradawi-White-House-meeting-National-Security-Council-staff.html)

The White House's National Security Council has confirmed that staffers held a June 13 meeting with Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, an Islamist cleric who shares leadership of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, where he is vice-president and the terror supporter Yusuf al-Qaradawi is president.

The meeting occurred on the same day the Obama administration announced plans to arm Syria's rebel factions, in the wake of a determination that President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism, which released a report Late Tuesday covering the circumstances of the meeting, wrote that bin Bayyah has referred to the anti-Semitic Islamist al-Qaradawi 'as "a mountain upon whose peak there is light” and as "a great reformer" who "spreads knowledge and wisdom."'

MailOnline saw a late draft of that report.

'Like many in the global Muslim Brotherhood movement who pose as moderates to the press and to liberal intellectuals by issuing condemnations of al-Qaida,' it read in part, 'Bin Bayyah refuses to label the acts of groups such as Hamas, Hizballah or Palestinian Islamic Jihad as terrorism.'

He has also issued 'an endorsement of the push by Muslim intellectuals to criminalize blasphemy against the Muslim prophet Muhammad and Islam,' the group reported.

Bin Bayyah wrote on his website in the days following that meeting that he 'visited the White House where he met with Ms. Gayle Smith, a senior aide to President Barack Obama, and Mr. Rashad Hussain, U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.'

'He also met with a number of experts,' that claim continued, 'including the director of public relations in the White House, the national security adviser, and representatives from seven government agencies.'


More nauseating content available at the linked article.

[Trapper John]

Just read this and was going to post. You beat me to it. Good job.

If the support of the Muslim Brotherhood and begging the Taliban to talk is not enough - now this? In light of all that has happened and is happening, you gotta be blind to not see the agenda here.:mad:

[Sigaba]

Next thing you know, the president will be sitting down for a face to face meeting with them.

[Streck-Fu]

Next thing you know, the president will be sitting down for a face to face meeting with them.

Right, because that is exactly the same thing....

[alelks]

Next thing you know, the president will be sitting down for a face to face meeting with them.

That's a pic of Ronald Reagan meeting Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985.


Full article (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-10/911-analysis-ronald-reagan-and-soviet-afghan-war-gw-bush-and-september-11-2001)

[Trapper John]

Next thing you know, the president will be sitting down for a face to face meeting with them.

Been going on longer than you think. From MERIA Journal 17(2) June 24, 2013 http://www.gloria-center.org/2013/06/the-u-s-governments-disastrous-muslim-outreach-efforts-and-the-impact-on-u-s-middle-east-policy-blind-to-terror1/

Abstract:

Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.

A very well researched article from an Israeli think tank. A must read IMO and it puts things into perspective - disturbing and uncomfortable to say the least. But, its better to be aware and prepared than unaware and unprepared.

Enlightening to say the least!

[Streck-Fu]

I'm with Streck, and would suggest that meeting with future, inadvertent enemy is not the same thing in this case.


In 25 years, Sigaba will be able to post a picture of Obama's envoy meeting the Syrian opposition leaders while our future President is dealing with a conflict in that region resulting from the current armament efforts.

[Trapper John]

Next thing you know, the president will be sitting down for a face to face meeting with them.

Sig- please don't try to politicize this. The issue transcends political ideology IMO. Read the cited article in my post and you will see what I mean.

Your quote in your signature line from GWB reflects what has been our greatest strength - a tolerant society. However, that tolerance is also our greatest weakness.

We are framing the issues in the wrong way IMO. It's not about tolerance of political ideology or religious belief or race or gender. We have a society founded on those ideals and we have a history of striving towards those ideals. That is not the issue and we do not need to prove it to ourselves or anyone else for that matter.

Rather, I now see it very clearly as an issue of the willingness to become intolerant of (sorry, for the lack of a better word) - Evil. Yes, the virtue of intolerance regardless of your politics, your skin color, your gender, or your religion.

If your intent (by word or deed) is to oppress and kill innocents - frankly, I don't care what ethnicity, religion or ideology you have - you are my enemy! Plain and simple. No grey areas. One singular absolute. You are my enemy. I will not tolerate you, I will not meet with you, I will not legitimize you, I will not afford you protection under my laws, and I will not negotiate with you.

I will, however, seek you out and eliminate you with extreme prejudice.

[Streck-Fu]

So, what happened to not negotiating with terrorists? This really makes me wonder whose side the administration is on. Am I looking at it the wrong way?

I would ask, 'Where have you been for the last 5 years?'.

[Trapper John]

So, what happened to not negotiating with terrorists? This really makes me wonder whose side the administration is on. Am I looking at it the wrong way?

No you are not. Read the article I posted above to understand why.

[Sigaba]

@Trapper John,

I am not politicizing anything--the OP does that. I am pointing out the glaring intellectual inconsistency that the OP reveals.

If, as some members of this BB aver, the West is in a centuries' long conflict with the Islamic world and if the intentions of the Islamic world can be determined from reading the Qur'an, then what is to be said of Reagan's support for the mujaheddin during his presidency?

Is the argument that when a Republican does it, it is grand strategy but when a guy we don't like does it, it is appeasement?

Or perhaps the argument is that today's have policymakers drunk the kool aid being served up by the leftist media and a complainant general population. Yet, the inconsistency here is that during the 1980s, the Heritage Foundation, that bastion of progressive liberal thought, lambasted Reagan for not doing enough to help "freedom fighters" or for addressing sufficiently America's interests in the Islamic world by exploring and exploiting political fissures in Islamic regions of the world <<LINK (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1984/02/us-aid-for-afghan-freedom-fighters-overdue)>><<LINK2 (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1987/12/planning-for-a-post-khomeini-iran)>>.

Or, as in the piece you quote, is it that we now see Islam as something we didn't quite understand before? (Then, if such is the case, what does this reveal of Reagan's reputation on this BB? If Islam is an "ideology" of evil that needs to be rooted out, why did Reagan repeatedly craft a narrative of the mujaheddin as freedom fighters <<LINK3 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42148)>><<LINK4 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40900)>><<LINK5 (www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=39498)>><<LINK6 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=38203)>><<LINK7 (www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36839)>><<LINK8 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33870)>><<LINK9 (www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35296)>>? Did he, and other members of the right, not get it? If so, why not? [If one says that Syria in 2013 is different than Afghanistan and Iranin the 1980s, then one eviscerates the argument that an Islamicist is an Islamicist is an Islamcist regardless of time, place, ethnicity, language, tribe, or gender.])

My point is this. If Republicans are going to continue to demonize the current president for his policies towards the Islamic world--even though some of his policies are a continuation of the policies of his Republican predecessors--they need to do a better job at grappling with what those predecessors actually said and did when they were in charge. Otherwise, I suspect that the GOP is going to have a difficult time convincing voters who have access to Google (or a library) that their solutions for GWOT are both different and better than what the current administration has put in place. (Bluntly, it is amazing how casually words like "apologist" and "revisionism" are used on this BB when it is politically convenient. And when it is intellectually inconvenient to examine ideological lenses, those two words become a place of shelter.)

@Streck-Fu, why do you start new threads on the current president's policies towards the Islamic world in general and Syria in particular when a simple use of the search button reveals that there are already robust threads on the topic(s) at hand--some of which you yourself started? That is to say, in twenty-five years, there will be evidence that you not only don't read your own posts, but you also disregard the posts of others--even those who happen to agree with you.

[MR2]

Starting a new book: Worlds at War; The 2,500-Year Struggle Between East and West - Anthony Pagden (2008)

I expect it to be biased. :(

[mark46th]

The difference between Afghanistan now and in the 1980's is that the Mujahadin were fighting the Russians. The Cold War was still on and anything that would kill Russians and cost the Russians money was justifiable by the administration to the public. Not too many people realized back then the Mujahadin would turn into the Taliban....

[Trapper John]

@Trapper JohnEntire Post

I just knew you couldn't resist. :D

Once again, the situation transcends political ideology. Mark46th pointed this out and the situation today is very, very different. In no way was my point an indictment of the progressive liberals. It is, however, an indictment of wrong headed thinking that we need to be tolerant of the principles of Islam and "reach out" to the Muslim community with open hearts, politically correct thinking, in the spirit of inclusion. If that sounds like an indictment of the liberal progressive view of the world - I am sorry. If the shoe fits.....

In our over zealous desire to not appear to offend the sensibilities of anyone or any group, we have lost our moral compass. If we tolerate every thing and every group's views and actions - well, we stand for nothing.

All I am saying is that it's about damn time we practice a little intolerance and WAKE UP before its too late.

[rab97]

Not all of the Mujhadeen became the Taliban. Some became our partner force in 2001. Can you ID which Mujhadeen those were talking with President Reagan?

[Trapper John]

And the plot thickens:
http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/home/94/conspiracy-treachery-and-terror-ongoing-litigation-exposes-cair-s-massive-web-of-fraud-and-deceit.html#.Uc3Gka7ncgo.twitter

From the article:
This past Wednesday, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed another important document in a four-year court battle that has brought to light the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR or CAIR National) elaborate ties to terrorism; its abuse of tax codes and corporate law; and most shockingly, its deliberate deception to the federal government regarding both its use of shell-corporations and its dubious funding sources.