White House defends Obama envoy to OIC: "This is an individual that has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur'an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong"

Hussain initially said he had no recollection of comments he was reported to have made in 2004 portraying the Bush Administration's treatment of alleged Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian and the handling other terrorism cases as "politically-motivated persecutions."

However, after POLITICO obtained an audio recording of the event, Hussain acknowledged that he made the comments and that he had earlier approached a magazine about removing them, which it did....

=======================
One by one, the disguises fall. Little by little, the monstrous ineptitude of the Obama administration becomes inescapably obvious. I am utterly disgusted with this president.

Utterly and completely disgusted.

Oh dear. Has it come to this?

Just look at what Robert Gibbs said before a nation-wide audience, leading them astray:

"This is an individual that has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur'an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong."

Surely he knows, or someone should have explained to him, that he should have said:

"This is an individual WHO has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur'an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong."

Wolcott Gibbs would never have committed such an obvious solecism. Why should Robert Gibbs?

In some ways, I keep thinking there's a referee out there who'll blow whistles on this craven deceitfulness. But there isn't. Not only are the foxes guarding the henhouse but most of the hens voted them in and don't seem to care -- not enough, certainly -- about this treachery.

I think Hussains actions, reduced to their salient points:

1) defended terror suspect(s) by dissing American justice system.

2)acted five years after the fact to have his quotes removed from the publication.

3)collaborated with the White House to deny making that call and tried to attribute his own quote to another.

4) admitted that the quotes were his and that he had in fact tried to cover them up when the tape surfaced.

are enough to give this issue legs for a long, long time!

Hussain acknowledged that he made the comments and that he had earlier approached a magazine about removing them...

He'd fit right in with CAIR, which some years ago excised thousands of files from its website that would've been quite damaging to their current fictive status as a neutral and loyal civil rights group.

*** 92:8 ***

Who can forget Tim Russert bowing to Hoop and timidly asking him questions about The Holy Prophet? Disgusting.

White House defends Obama envoy to OIC:

"This is an individual that made a career out of defending Islamic terrorists and wrote a lot of crap about Islam and the Qur'an to pull the Islamic wool over infidel eyes and ears....

Fixed it!

Huh-uh, the Koran is a religious device so says Robert Gibbs. What d'ya know. Learn something everyday. Just imagine "religious device" being substituted for "Koran" as in "Look yonder there Sally Mae, looks like one of those Islam people with a religious device." Ah, the possibilities here are endless. Thank you, Robert Gibbs, for once again supplying us with unintentional humor.

Now back to the question that Robert Spencer poses: what exactly has Rashad Hussain ever written about the Qur'an? And if he has written about the Qur'an, why has no one ever heard of those writings until now? And if, as Robert Gibbs insists, Rashad Hussein has demonstrated conclusively that the Qur'an, if rightly understood, stands for the proposition, that all good Muslims understand or should be made to understand, that the use of terrorism is "absolutely wrong" then surely shouldn't those writings be made public, put on the Internet, published everywhere?

Isn't that exactly what we Infidels have all been waiting for? A Lochinvar, out of the West, even if he is named Rashad Hussain and even if he does try to have some of his his previous remarks anent Muslims and Islam surreptitiously removed, who will show us, chapter and verse, how -- chapter and verse -- the Qur'an does not mean what it appears to mean, as in 9.29 and 9.5, as in "Kill the Unbelievers" and "strike terror in the hearts of the Unbelievers" and, you know, a hundred-odd verses just like that.

If Rashad Hussain has really written a convincing rebuttal to the notiion that the Qur'an contains a great many verses (and the Hadith many more stories, and the Sira too) that might lead an unsuspecting Believer to think that Muslims are at war with Infidels, that Muslims have a duty to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam through their "struggle" or Jihad, and that Dar al-Islam, the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, must expand inexorably until it swallows up Dar al-Harb, and covers the whole world, as it should, for the whole world belongs to Allah and to the Believers, the "Best of Peoples."

Here's Robert Gibbs again on Rashad Hussain:

"This is an individual that [sic] has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur'an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong."

Oh we need this, we have to see those extensive writings. Not in five years, when Rashad Hussain produces a book, his memoir (blurbs on the back by John Esposito and Karen Armstrong) about being Young, and a Muslim, and a Young Muslim Reformer Bravely Sent As American Envoy Extraordinaire to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Not in one year. Right now. Our lives may may depend on it, world peace may depend on it.

It would be cruel, it would be monstrous, to keep us, and keep the world's Infidels, and more importantly keep the world's Muslims, from seeing those "extensive writings" of Rashad Hussain that once and for all show that the use by those "violent extremists" of "religious devices [sic] like the Qur'an" [I wonder if Muslims are altogether pleased with that phrase of Gibbs: "religious devices like the Qur'an"?] is not merely "wrong" but "absolutely wrong."

Robert Spencer asks, with a scarcely-detectable plaintive note, the following:

"If anyone can direct me to Hussain's writings about the Qur'an, please write me at director [at] jihadwatch.org."

Please, Mr. Gibbs, who defends the appointment, or please, Mr. Obama, who made the appointment, or please, Mr. Hussain, who wants to accept the appointment and made sure to cover his previous disturbing tracks, won't one of you take time to direct not only Robert Spencer, but many many more people, all over this country (I trust they will all be informed about Mr. Hussain's writings that have made such a remarkable contribution to Interfaith Understanding), to those writings?

It's not much to ask.

Does the US Senate vote to confirm the appointment of Hussain to this position?

Would any reasonably competent US Senator think it relevant to procure and read Mr. Hussain's exensive writings about the Koran prior to any confirmation vote?

Are there any reasonably competent US Senators?

How does one approach a magazine to remove comments before one recalls making those comments?

he's an envoy, not an ambassador. This won't require Congressional approval. But in a well-ordered polity, such an appointment, that was made before anyone knew about Rashad Hussain's previous astonishing remarks (astonishing, that is, if he is to be considered as envoy material), and before anyone knew of his attempt to cover up, and then his silence on that denial (a cover-up of his cover-up), which second cover-up had to go when he learned that a tape of his original remarks existed, and when the reporter who wrote the story insisted she had not misattributed remarks to him that had been made, so some suggested, by Al-Arian's daughter.

The initial remarks were bad enough,and should have led to an end to considering Rashad Hussain for the appointment as envoy to the O.I.C., and his removal, even as the lowest of underlings, from the Office of the Counsel of the President.

The attempted cover-up by Rashad Hussain, who called the Washington Report on the Middle East and asked them, sometime in 2007, 2009, 2009, to delete his remarks, was by itself bad enough, and should have led to an end to considering Rashad Hussain for the appointment as envoy to the O.I.C., and his removal, even as the lowest of underlings, from the Office of the Counsel of the President.

The attempted cover-up of his attempted cover-up, by Rashad Hussain, who did not admit that it was he who had done the first cover-up, that is not until the tape of his original remarks surfaced, was by itself bad enough, and should have led to an end to considering Rashad Hussain for the appointment as envoy to the O.I.C., and his removal, even as the lowest of underlings, from the Office of the Counsel of the President.

The original remarks, the cover-up, the cover-up of the cover-up, and now this nonsense uttered by horton-doesn't-hear-the-who Robert Gibbs, about how Rashad Hussain
"is an individual that has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur'an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong" without producing or adducing a single example of those extensive writings -- well, what more do you need to be disgusted and outraged and, because of the deeper miscomprehension the whole affair reveals, scared too - scared for Western Europe, scared for Israel, scared for the United States, scared for all the non-Muslims who now must endure life in Muslim lands knowing that the United States is run by those who simply do not, or will not, understand the meaning, and menace, of Islam.

Perpster asks: "How does one approach a magazine to remove comments before one recalls making those comments?"

Unless one is Billy Pilgrim from Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse Five (who became unstuck in time, if you haven't read it), one has to be a liar.

Have you seen this:

UNF*CKINGBELIEVABLE: Missile Defense Agency Changed Their Logo...Now It Looks Like Obama's Logo...Added Bonus: They Added The Islamic Crescent!...UPDATE: Same Company Redesigned Recovery.Gov...UPDATE II

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/02/unfuckinbelievable-missile-defense-agency-us-gov-changed-their-logonow-it-looks-very-similar-to-the-.html

Hugh,

Beside Ambassadors and Supreme Court Justices, many other appointments are routinely confirmed by the US Senate, or by committees of the Senate. I am wondering if the position that Hussain is to receive is included among the thousands of positions which are legally subject to the confirmation process. Admittedly, most of these positions are routine and uncontroversial and unpolitical. However an envoy to the OIC, and particularly this individual, should be considered unusual, controversial and political.

An appointment as a special envoy should be subject to Congressional (Senate) review. If such an appointment is NOT, then US statutes should be modified to include just such an appointment.

According to the Congressional Research Service,

"The Senate gives its advice and consent to presidential appointments to the Supreme Court and to high-level positions in the Cabinet departments and independent agencies. The Senate also confirms appointments of members of regulatory commissions, ambassadors, federal judges, U.S. attorneys, and U.S. marshals. There are more than
2,000 of these appointments as well as thousands of routine non-political appointments to and promotions in the military and other civilian positions that require confirmation. Appointees named to be Supreme Court justices and Cabinet secretaries receive the Senate’s closest scrutiny due to the significance of these positions."

"[Rashad Hussain] is an individual that has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur'an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong. And has garnered support from both the left and the right ...."

o.k. So how much support has he "garnered" in the Moslem world? Have his "extensive" writings been translated into Arabic? or Persian? or Turkish? How many copies of his "extensive" writings, translated or not, have been sold in the Islamic world?

Hi Robert and all of you Jihadwatch followers, as I promised last week, here is the second article of "blogging the Qur'an" translated in French. You can find it here
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/02/bloguer-le-coran-sourate-1-%e2%80%9cle-prologue%e2%80%9d-ou-%e2%80%9cl%e2%80%99ouverture%e2%80%9d/
Also I have started to publish a fantastic translation of "the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" with some chapters already available, you can find it here
http://www.avraidire.eu/category/islam/robert-spencer-islam/le-guide-politiquement-incorrect-de-lislam-robert-spencer-islam-islam/

Bonjour à Robert et à vous tous lecteurs de Jihadwatch, comme promis la semaine dernière, voici le deuxième article dans la série "bloguer le Coran", traduction en français de la série "blogging the Qur'an" écrite par Robert Spencer.Vous pouvez le trouver ici
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/02/bloguer-le-coran-sourate-1-%e2%80%9cle-prologue%e2%80%9d-ou-%e2%80%9cl%e2%80%99ouverture%e2%80%9d/
J'ai aussi commencé à publier des traductions d'un livre de Robert Spencer, "le guide politiquement incorrect de l'Islam", vous pouvez déjà trouver quelques chapitres en français ici
http://www.avraidire.eu/category/islam/robert-spencer-islam/le-guide-politiquement-incorrect-de-lislam-robert-spencer-islam-islam/

Once again, feel free to share the news using social networks buttons available on my blog to educate as many people as you can on Islam, especially the french speakers. I will publish another one next week,in the meantime, enjoy!

Antoine Martin

Never thought of the koran as a device before.

And this from the spokesman, the one guy on their team that is supposed to have mastered English.

But given this, and the extemporaneous way that mohammed is imagined to have received and recited the koran, I suppose it might well be considered an Improvised Explosive Device.

=========

What a BS artist Gibbs is!

From Wikipedia

The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf for a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

"some have used religious devices like the Qur'an..."
-- Robert, not Wolcott, Gibbs, Presidential spokesman, back-and-forthing with the press

Banter with a strange device.

It's very important that Fox and other alternative media keeps the pressure on. We have to "Van Jones" this guy...create a groundswell to force his resignation.

That may be the only thing, and I wonder if it is one more of those "all of modern science can be found in the Qur'an if you only look closely enough" bits of nonsense.

And I wonder if by any chance all copies of that thesis have myseteriously disappeared, even from the university archives in Chapel Hill? You never know.

Still, wouldn't it be fun to quiz Rashad Hussain about his understanding of the "Big Ban Cosmological Theory," just to see him stammer?

"So, please tell the committee, Mr. Hussain, what was the contribution of Hans Bethe to the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory?"

Und so weiter.

Concerning slimy bottom-feeder Robert Gibbs, I consider him to be as dangerous a propagandist as Goebbels.

And, you know he doesn't know jackshit about Islam - he's just a walking/talking mouthpiece for our Muslim president.

I'm still trying to comprehend that the new logo for our Missile Defense Agency has a star and crescent.

We are living in perilous times.

"Surely he knows, or someone should have explained to him, that he should have said:"

""This is an individual WHO has written..."

Goodness, Hugh--

That one smacked me right between the eyes, too. Sometimes, when I see such glaring disregard to the English language, I just can't get past it, to read the rest of a statement. It's like having a fingernail that keeps snagging on everything one touches.

Hugh,

Here's the executive summary of the Brookings Institute article Hussain co-authored in 2008 called "Reformulating the Battle of Ideas: Understanding the Role of Islam in Counterterrorism Policy". Like John Brennan, Hussain maintains that terrorism has nothing to do with jihad:

As the National Commission on the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks emphasized, significant progress against terrorism cannot be achieved exclusively through the use of military force. This paper argues that in order to win the “battle of ideas,” the United States government must carefully reformulate its strategy and work with the Muslim world to promote mainstream Islam over terrorist ideology. The global effort to end terrorism must be more effective in utilizing its strongest ally: Islam. There is nothing more persuasive to Muslims than Islam. If the global coalition to stop Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups is to succeed, it must convince potential terrorists that Islam requires them to reject terrorism. As a part of this effort, this paper recommends the following:

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/08_counterterrorism_hussain.aspx

In short, Hussain advocates allowing the Muslim world to define our interests, policies and goals and advocates for a complete pass on criticism of anything in Islam or the culture of Muslims. In fact, he's already in complete agreement with the OIC to which he's just been appointed special envoy!

Again, I think this is a winner if Fox presses it. On the other hand, with evidence emerging that Fox itself is partially owned by Muslim financial interests, what kind of conflicted interests does IT have? Suddenly, it's not just the fox guarding the henhouse; it's even the fox guarding the FOX warren -- or something like that. :)

Well, you have to laugh sometimes. Better than exploding ...

Ugh. The very fact that Hussain defended al Arian should make him ineligible for ANY post in the Obama administration.

The fact that he has been caught in multiple lies should subject him to being fired.

The whole premise of that paper is absurd. And that premise is that Muslims are unaware of what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and unaffected by the example of the Perfect Man, Muhammad, who believed that Muslims were always and everywhere in a state of war (though not necessarily of open warfare) with Unbelievers, Infidels, non-Muslims. This is not something that any of the many Muslim advisers, from Rashad Hussain to Vali Nasr, is likely to admit, and even such people as Fouad Ajami and Azar Nafisi, as long as they can't come out as what they so obviously are, non-believers (but with varying degrees of willingness to denounce Islam, because of residual filial piety, and embarrassment, and fear, and many other complicated emotions) will not go into this. But many people raised up in Islam, who have rejected it, and know the attitudes of Muslims, those who have been brought up in societies (or communities, or families) suffused with Islam, and understand the atmospherics of Islam, and those who have studied the psychology of Muslims, such as Andre Servier, a writer who didn't mince words, which makes his book so shocking to delicate sensibilites in 2010, though his observations were not shocking at all to those who read his book when it first came out in the early 1920s. "The Psychology of the Musulman" with an introdcution by Louis Bertrand cna be found and read on-line, or downloaded.

The problem that is not recognized by our government is that Muslim terrorism is not the main, not the most effective, instrument of Jihad. And they do not even understand what Jihad is, or what instruments of Jihad are, even now, inexorably working away, all over the Western world. They do not recognize that the very paper you have quoted from, to which Rashad Hassain contributed, is an example of the propaganda, the Jihad of "pen, tongue," that is one of the most important instruments of Jihad. They take a narrow view, and cannot look up from their worrying about whether or not "Al Qaeda" will regain a foothold here, or there, to see what is happening world-wide, and why Al Qaeda is not the most important problem, but only a small part of a much larger problem, one that remains even if al Qaeda disappears, and even if terrorism by Muslims disappears (it won't, of course, but there are many cunning Muslims, such as Tariq Ramadan, who wish the World Trade Center bombing had never taken place, not because they disapprove morally, but because they feel the West has been alerted too soon in the game, before the Muslims could thoroughly entrench themselves, in large numbers, all over the Western world).

Most of the people who rule over us are simply not well-informed, and in the hectic vacancy of their jobs, where they all get to work at 7 a.m., and have meetings, and prepare papers and have more meetings, and then react to this event, in that corner of the world, and to that event, in this corner of the world, and tell themselves "well done, thou good and faithful servant" because they are so very busy, busy, busy, that surely, surely it must all add up to something, must mean that they are really accomplishing things of moment, things of real value. No, very often they are not. And what is worse, they don't know how to make time to sit, to read, to grasp, to assimilate, to understand --and that is what the ideology of Islam, and the history of Islamic conquest, both require: the leisure to think.

God, what a luxury it is today. The leisure to think. And if you don't do it before you rise high on the greasy pole, the chances are you won't be allowed, or won't allow yourself, to make the time. And if you choose, out of stupidity or sentimentality or inertia or fear of rocking the boat or fear of finding out something most unpleasant and unsusceptible of obvious off-the-rack solution, but requiring a much longer view, and a broad knowledge of history, and of men and events, well --why not just keep serving up the mixture as before, from the same old punch bowl? It's so much easier.

I wonder if Gibbs has his own prayer rug, or does he share one with Rasool Obama? They gotta go...soon...
It's just about time to storm the Bastille...

“Sometimes the bullshit piled up so fast you needed wings to stay above it.”
-- Apocalypse Now

I'm so very, very tired of Muslims' endless shell game where the frank jihadis invoke the Koran and their dissembling co-religionists and supporters, like Hussain and Brennan, argue the opposite. They're all aware of the other side, yet they never seem to want to engage. Really, why don't we see debates on Al Jazeera between any of the countless representatives from both camps? Isn't it because they all know who's really right? And doesn't it even suit the more honest, accurate jihadists to maintain this charade?

Fox News is no longer a friend of those critical to Islam, one can see that with how fast they dropped coverage of those five Muslims cooks/soldiers accused of plotting to poison American military personnel.

No follow up, no nothing. Very CNN like.

And just today one of Fox's bubble heads interviewed a CAIR goon and a critic(whose name escapes me) of Rashad Hassain. During the discussion the critic pointed out that if the U.S. becomes a signatory to what the OIC expounds we can no longer criticize Islam at all. The bubble head almost flipped out over that statement and essentially shouted the critic down.

As far as I can tell Fox is only marginally more honest than say MSNBC when it comes to Islam and will probably get worse as the Saudis gradually exert more editorial control over content.

They should send a marine, a Chesty Puller type envoy to tell those disgusting bastards politely, the shit hit the fan again.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

WALT: "Fox News is no longer a friend of those critical to Islam."

Foxnews gives voice to Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Steve Emerson, Michelle Malkin, and several other renowned critics of Islam. It was Fox's own Wendell Goler who asked Gibbs about Hussain.

I guess Gibbs missed the religious device's commands in 8:60 to terrorize all unbelievers, and muster all the equipment and force they can to do it, especially the religious device called a nuke. Meester Giibs and Meester Obama: EIGHT SIXTY. Save the U.S. about a bazillion needless deaths, puhleese? Nuke Allah (Mecca) before you are nuked by Allah's true believers, Allah has spoken.

http://go.to/islamhistory

Here's an attempted defense of Hussain by one Daveed Gartenstein-Ross:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2010/02/a_defense_of_rashad_hussain.php

I'm sorry but I don't know who this guy is or why he's so inclined to split hairs, as he concedes it appears, so earnestly here. Hussain's defense was never that the quotes themselves weren't verbatim accurate and his whole effort to cover his tracks and lie afterwards is more than enough deception for me. In a highly-charged diplomatic world, where confidential interactions are the norm, the status as the American president's liason with an organization whose agenda is, at the very least, "independent" of American interests, is far too sensitive and important for someone caught in such a web of deceptions.

But, I digress. What I wanted to ask is if anyone's found a transcript of Hussain speaking at the 2004 Chicago conference? I'd like to review it myself vis-a-vis Gartenstein-Ross.

Thanks,

If you look at Obama's presidency, in fact, it resembles nothing less than a sophomoric Ivy League Islamic Student's Association or some generic stereotypical third world student's association. Obama and his cabinet are very much like the eager greenhorn students in your typical college association out to change the world with their rhetoric, placard-waving and postmodern hip ideology. It would be quite funny how sophomoric and immature Obama and his anal retentive groupie radicals are, if it weren't for the fact that Obama's policies are ruining the United States domestically and internationally due to his immaturity, incompetence and teenage-like arrogance.

"How high up the chain do the lies go"?

They come from the top and travel down...not unlike feces.

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

The apologist spin attempting to cover for Hussain is very weak and superficial. I just tried to slap back at some over on Foreign Policy:

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/23/the_despicable_smearing_of_rashad_hussein

I really think that what's woefully missing from the many beachheads in this global war are direct, open public confrontations between Muslims who say X and those who say -non-X. Wafa Sultan catapulted to fame in that one Al Jazeera video clip on Youtube directly confronting her Islamic adversaries. That's what people need. More of that kind of stuff. If Hussain, Brennan, Obama or anyone wants to make the case that all these violent jihadis are "misunderstanders" as the folks here at JW keep saying so faceitiously, let's seem them do it where it counts -- in debates with the Muslims who say otherwise. There's only so much time and the shell game is running out the clock.

Hugh writes:

"The problem that is not recognized by our government is that Muslim terrorism is not the main, not the most effective, instrument of Jihad. "

Perhaps logically, in terms of abstract theory, this sounds sound; but in actual fact, terrorist attacks have -- through a perverse paradox facilitated symbiotically with the West's own dominant and mainstream PC MC -- actually helped, not hindered, the broader, deeper, less noticeable advance of Jihad into the West.

"US slams Israel over designating heritage sites" (AP)

This just in. The Obama Administration's collosal stupidity and Islamic bias (since when does a JEWISH HOLY SITE-THE TOMB OF THE PATRIARCHS AND RACHEL'S TOMB BECOME ILLEGITIMATE AS A JEWISH HERITAGE SITE ?) could not be any clearer.

Several points:

1. The Obama ass-licking press ALWAYS includes the word
'Slam' in any article about Israel. One would think Israel
and Slam (weren't they a 1980s pop group ?) always
go together. I would ask the ass-licking press why they
use a hockey term. Is Netanyahu or the IDF hockey players ?
The US Press is almost universally imbecilic.

2. Since when does a JEWISH HOLY SITE stop being holy simply because of its geographical location ? Let me remind readers that these sites only became holy AFTER the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (former Nazi and Hitler ass-licker)
declared that Rachel's and the Patriarch's Tomb are holy
because Muslims recognize the Jewish prophets as well according to Quranic tradition. Funny, when Jordan controlled the 'West Bank', no Muslim ever visited the Tombs
-or 'AL AQSA' FOR THAT MATTER-another false Muslim holy site
which was re-animated from the dung heep of Hadith traditions when the Mufti and Arafat suddenly declared that
Al Aqsa was holy 1200 years after Muhammad forbade his followers to do QIBLAT facing Jerusalem but instead face
Mecca; since Jerusalem is NOT mentioned in the Quran and
Muslim Qiblat has been towards Mecca since around 720 AD,
Muslims have no historical basis for claiming the Ottoman
Al Aqsa (not Arab) as being holy to Muslims.

3. Finally, and this is laughable. How many real and imagined Islamic 'holy sites' once claimed by Muslims all over the world are off limits to non-Muslims ? Imagine Medina (the ancient Yathrib, once a predominantly JEWISH city) being
over-run with Jews (who aren't even allowed in Saudi Arabia anyway)...the Saudi Security Forces would mown the Jews down
with AK-47s in microseconds. The Babar Mosque in India which
was a Hindu Temple for 600 years until the Moghuls defaced
it and turned it into a Muslim 'holy site'. When Hindus
dared to visit the site years ago, Muslims as far away as
Indonesia rioted (not to mention the Indian Muslims who whined and bleated like infants). There are countless examples-the Dome of the Rock itself is of course JEWISH
TERRITORY but even conservative Israeli politicians don't
suggest that it be returned to Jews (though it should be).
Even 'Right Wing' Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman never
suggested that Dome of the Rock be bereft of Muslims and
converted to a Jewish Temple which tells you that even
conservative Jews are more tolerant than the most 'liberal' Muslim.

SLAM INDEED.

OBAMA NEEDS TO BE SLAMMED UPSIDE HIS GODDAM SILLY HEAD !!