| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses a favored proposition of official dhimmi Washington -- that we should work together with the Saudis to combat terrorism:
Blame the "experts." Blame C.I.A. intelligence agents who operate at the level of Michael Scheuer: a schoolboy, with a schoolboy's understanding of Islam, and his worldview vitiated by his peculiar views on assorted Jewish cabals here and there. Blame the former National Security Council "senior director for Middle Eastern affairs" who continues to suggest (see Flynt Leverett, "Ambassador with Portfolio" in The New Duranty Times, July 26, 2005) that we should work to "combat terrorism" jointly with the Saudis and should reach out to the new Ambassador Prince Turki, and who repeats phrases about "access to oil" and the oil market that show he hasn't the faintest idea how the world oil markets work, or what the role of Saudi Arabia has been in oil-pricing over the past third of a century, and who even believes that the "war on terrorism" is "at its heart, a war on Al Qaeda." Naturally, such a person has no conception of why the islamization of Europe, even if it occurred in a completely peaceful fashion, would be a mortal threat to the United States and to Western civilization. When such a person talks about reestablishing our "strategic partnership" with Saudi Arabia (by which one assumes he is referring to the fact that the Saudis wanted to help, for their own Muslim reasons, defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, and for their own Wahhabi and Al-Saud reasons, wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein and were thrilled to have the Americans do it -- just as twenty years ago they were happy to help, with the Americans, resupply Saddam Hussein with American tanks, their Saudi markings painted over by, among others, an acquaintance of mine), let us take it with a large grain of salt.Flynt Leverett is a great believer in appeasement of the Saudis, which he thinks is necessary. It is contained in a sentence toward the end of his Op/Ed piece: In order to win over Prince Turki to join the fight against terrorism, he says, “the United States would need to be prepared for a serious conversation about modifying its policies toward regional security, stability and peacekeeping in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli peace process to recognize Saudi interests and initiatives -- a conversation that Prince Turki could facilitate."
This is the same mixture as before: more of the same appeasement that has been tried for the past 33 1/3 years. Yet a different strategy toward Saudi Arabia was set out brilliantly by J. B. Kelly in his detailed "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West." But we would never put in place taxes, ever-increasing, on gasoline at the pump, or on oil, in a way that would have allowed us to recapture oligopolistic rents (perhaps several trillion dollars) because we were all so busy with the “expert” opinions of Western hirelings: lawyers, public relations agents, businessmen who wanted to sell arms and others who did not want to diminish those petrodollars because they derived such individual profit from "recycling" them, diplomats, intelligence agents who lacked intelligence, and the likes, it seems, of this Flynt Leverett.And this Flynt Leverett, who let me remind you is the "former senior director for Middle Eastern Affairs at the National Security Council," ends his Op/Ed with this remarkable paragraph:
"The 60-year partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia was not, as President Bush alluded [sic] in a 2003 speech, a mistake. It was, and remains, an indispensable element in America's quest for a mroe stable regional and international order. The administration should take advantage of Prince Turki's presence in Washington to give that partnership the attention it deserves."What deserves attention is how someone capable of thinking that there has been a "partnership," and not a consistent snookering, of Infidel America by malevolently anti-Infidel Saudi Arabia, was ever allowed near a government office, much less allowed to become the "senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council." I can hear Kelly's scorn and bitter laughter now. With this kind of "expert" helping direct or form our policy toward Saudi Arabia, we are lost.
The Flynt Leveretts of this world, who so misunderstand Saudi Arabia and the nature of that hollow "partnership," do not realize that the Saudis have never been our allies. Sometimes there has been cooperation when, for their own interests, they wished to back Iraq against Shi'a Iran, or the muhajedin against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, or were happy to see the Americans remove Saddam Hussein. But that is very different from saying we have been partners. In Afghanistan, once the Soviets had gone, the Saudis backed to the hilt (and so did the U.A.E.) the regime of the Taliban. The Taliban, in turn, gave aid and comfort and refuge to the Saudi-financed Al Qaeda forces of Bin Laden. While the Saudis dislike the Shi'a of Iran, they do not dislike them because they find the Islamic Republic of Iran hideous in its imposition of the Sharia and in its totalitarianism, but merely because the Iranian Shi'a and the Saudi Wahhabi are mortal enemies. If the Saudis were happy to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, it is not because he massacred nearly 200,000 Kurds -- the Saudis saw nothing wrong with that, and never mentioned it. Nor did they care about his massacres of the Shi'a. No, all they cared about was Saddam Hussein's threat to them.
It is the same with terrorism. They are indifferent to terrorism, except that which is directed at them, and their interests. Why should they care if Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah, or Jaish-e-Mohammad or Laskar Jihad, attacks Hindus, Jews, Christians? Why? It would violate everything the Saudis so deeply believe in, even if some smoothy, with liquid brown eyes and a soft voice (is Prince Turki one of those, one of those whose daggers-and-dishdasha war dances of triumph are only behind the scenes?) assures us, or some Barbara-Wawa level of interviewer, otherwise.
There is no need to appease Saudi Arabia on anything. In fact, we should be letting them know that the continued existence of the House of Al-Saud, or of its control over the Al-Hasa Province, and its continued belief that the Americans will protect them, can no longer be taken for granted. And one test will be whether the Saudi funding for mosques, madrasas, Da'wa of every kind (look at the Freedom House report on Saudi anti-Infidel hate literature all over American mosques) ends. Because if it doesn't end, we can regard Saudi Arabia as the declared enemy, and begin to seize its illiquid assets. Such talk will get their attention. It is the only way, in fact, to get their attention.
Will someone in the Pentagon please bring J. B. Kelly over for a little walk down Memory Lane, about Sheik Zayed, and Pachachi in Abu Dhabi back in 1971, and why Oman and Sultan Qaboos are not getting their due, and why Saudi Arabia is by far the most malevolent state in the entire area? What would it cost? A plane ticket? A hotel room for a week? Bring him over. If someone in the Pentagon sufficiently high up is reading this, you know what to do. And while you're at it, how about having Bat Ye'or come in to discuss the islamization of Europe -– that is, Eurabia? Another ticket, another hotel room. Last I looked, the Pentagon was spending half-a-trillion. Has it gone up? Can you afford two tickets, and two hotel rooms, possibly with a Saturday-overnight so that you can save a little on the Pentagon budget, for more rah-rah propaganda about the Democracy Is On the March stuff?
C'mon Pentagon, you can take a moment from your busy busy schedule to listen to J. B. Kelly and Bat Ye'or in the flesh -- can't you?
Posted by Robert at July 30, 2005 10:35 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
All I can say thank god for our highly refined sense of morality and fair play other wise some one would do something rational and remove some of the experts before their normal bureaucratic lifespan ended of natural causes.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 30, 2005 11:48 AM
edit irrational
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at July 30, 2005 11:49 AM
You had it right the first time
Posted by: Infidel33 at July 30, 2005 12:45 PM
Hugh,
I think everyone of these experts should, at the end of their 'opinion' pieces be required to disclose their financial relationships with Arab countries and Islamic organizations. We now require that of EVERY stock expert that comes on TV or writes an opinion about any stock. After a stock analyst makes his spiel about buying some stock, they must disclose all interests (their co. has done secondary offerings, has received stock, been on their payroll, expects future ealings and benefits from that stock company, it's endless the secret financical links that are possible and they must disclose it.) That is because those same stock 'experts' deceived investors in the stock market debacle of 1996-2000. If they are caught, they can be subjected to fines and lose their broker' licenses among other penalties.
Similar punishments (ban from the halls of Congress and the White House, blacklisted, etc.) should be brought against those 'experts' who do not disclose these financial relationships and these relationships are then exposed. Of course, you will always have the "Idiot Dhimmis with Influence", like Condi Rice (oh holey holey holey Qur'an idiot extraordinaire), who don't have these treasonous relationships but whose bad advice and ability to surround themselves with Muslim agents (Norquist) and Muslim apologists( Esposito, Armstrong) are a mortal danger to America. They will be exposed as the idiots they are and hopefully shamed into getting some wisdom or shamed out of their position of influence.
We should demand the same from all these terrorism 'experts' and those who do not fully disclose their financial linkages with terrorist supporting states and groups.
As for Flynt Leverett, he is now on my 'Dangerous Dhimmis with Influence' list. His actions and statements will be documented and linked and he will be exposed, along with so many others, in my new website under development.
And George Bush and the Bush family and their friends, you have been had. Oh it has been a financially lucrative relationship with the Saudis. Yet that relationship is allowing the Saudis to build fortresses for the Islamization of America from one end of the country to the other and the creation of the Fifth Column through our stupid immigration policies.
History will not be kind to the Bush's for their ignorance of Islam, taqiyya, and the overwhelming Muslim drive to destroy Dar al-Harb. Do they even know what Dar al-Harb is? How can they when they cannot even name the enemy. A country whose citizens see their leaders as liers and apologists will fail. Now let's all get back to the 'struggle against evil ideologies.' Whatever.
The way to defeat Islam is to cutoff all aid to these countries and not try to stop them from falling into anarchy and internecine and tribal wars. That is the way to weaken Islam. They, the Muslims, must see Islam as a failure. Instead we spend enormous sums in money and the precious blood of our citizens and brave military to prevent Islam from becoming weak. It makes no sense to me. Why can they not see that? That is the question. I want an answer.
Reset
Reset
at July 30, 2005 12:48 PM
Bravo Hugh and bravo "reset."
This isn't rocket science: The veil was torn away a long time ago. I hope that someone high up can indeed inform the clueless and cause them to action before the citadels the Saudis have constructed and equipped at great cost pour forth the vanguard of conquest and occupation.
Posted by: epg at July 30, 2005 1:52 PM
"everyone of these experts should, at the end of their 'opinion' pieces be required to disclose their financial relationships with Arab countries and Islamic organizations."
-- from a posting above
While that would be a good idea, it does not account for sheer mental laziness, the refusal to study Islam, to study thoroughly its tenets, the canonical texts and how they were arrived at, the reception of those texts, the commentaries upon those texts, and how those texts have been acted upon, by Muslims, in time and space, whenever and wherever they have possessed the requisite wherewithal to carry out the duties that Islam requires of them.
I don't think Arab money explains the bland smiling and ultra-polite ("No sir" and "No ma'am") but entirely lacking in guile, but with that telling business about the Zionist influence (if Scheuer thinks it was the Israelis -- who kept saying that Iran was or should be the first concern -- and not the Saudis who helped push along the Iraq venture, this is one more indication of how little he, who was once in charge of something called the "Bin Laden desk" (or to that effect). You put someone extremely clever, not someone who is so obviously limited in his world view, in his knowledge of history, in the scope of his understanding of Islam, in charge of such a thing -- not someone like Scheuer. But unlike all those ex-diplomats and ex-intelligence agents who have directly or indirectly been on the Saudi or other Arab payroll, I don't think in Scheuer's case there is that -- as yet. Let's see where he ends up.
And the same is true for Leverett. He's far more intelligent than Scheuer. He's writing a book about Syria which, I assume, will tell the American government what ought to be obvious -- tread carefully in Syria, because the Alawites are the only ones protecting the Christians, and perhaps we can make a deal with that military caste to leave them alone, within Syria, which they may continue at a slightly reduced level to plunder, but that those non-Muslim Muslims, the Alawites (they worship Miriam, and every Alwaite house has a picture of her on the outside) must stop proving their bonafides to Sunni Arabs by allowing Syrian and other Sunnis to use Syria as a staging-point for entry into, and escape out of, Iraq, and must similarly prove to the Shi'a of next-door Iran their Shi'a bonafides, by serving as a conduit for Iranian aid to Hezbollah. Leverett may get this right -- but if he does, it will take him a book to do what I just did in a paragraph. You have to justify your grant money, your leisure-time, after all - it would not do to produce a few chiselled paragraphs to say what needs to be said (this is merely one more example of the required scholarly elephantiasis that the academic rat-race, or the safe-harbor -- after government service -- of think-tanks require. Scribble, scribble, scribble -- but it is not, unfortunately, Mr. Gibbon who is being addressed.
Leverett is not on the Saudi payroll. He is paid by the Saban Center, founded by that maecenas Haim Saban, an Israeli who made his money, if memory serves, with the MIghty Morph Rangers, and as an Israeli, he wanted to "do something for Isael" and so what could he do better than take some of that Mighty-Morph money and start up one more "institute" in Washington, giving jjobs to careerists who, because they were involved somehow with Israel, as ambassadors or negotiationrs or something, and are Jewish, they can pretend to a man like Saban that they -- just give us the money, please oh pretty pleasse -- are just the fellows to run the institute or center or whatever it is. I can't remember if it is Indyk or Ross who runs it; they are like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and what they don't know about Islam -- well, they don't know a thing about Islam. I mean, they would be shocked at the question -- what's Islam got to do with the Arab-Israeli dispoute, and the "Peace Process"? Huh? Don't confuse them with Islam. And there goes Haim Saban's money, right down the Brookings Institute drain. At least, if he has any interest in scholarly undertakings that might mean something, and who knows -- might even lead to a more sensible foreign policy that would increase, and not diminish, Israel's security and even possibly allow it, over the long term, to survive.
Oh well. That's what happens in Washington, when a plausible fellow in want of some dough finds someone who "wants to do something for Israel" and has a lot of dough -- a marriage made in heaven. Very amusing, or tragic, or something.
Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2005 2:03 PM
Hugu wrote...While that would be a good idea, it does not account for sheer mental laziness, the refusal to study Islam, to study thoroughly its tenets, the canonical texts and how they were arrived at, the reception of those texts, the commentaries upon those texts, and how those texts have been acted upon, by Muslims, in time and space, whenever and wherever they have possessed the requisite wherewithal to carry out the duties that Islam requires of them.
What's the cure for laziness? or is it incurable?
It costs nothing to learn about Islam on the web. It costs nothing to visit your library.
If only we had an intellectual stimulation pill that we could give them. An Islam viagra pill to get the mental blood flowing. I think most MSM reporters quit reading after journalism school. There was nothing more to learn.
I find it amusing when I see Sperry, author of Infiltration, interviewed on TV on Fox news. The reporter, completely ignores the book, and asks about profiling,the hot topic of the day. Should we do it? Are we harming our civil rights? and on and on. Not a mention of the book's alarming contents and it's implications? Why? Because that reporter did not even read the cover jacket, much less crack it open. And they never will. It was put back on the shelf, never to be read by anyone in the news dept. That, my friends, is the level of stupidity and laziness we have in our MSM.
In their defense, they would say "We receive hundreds of books before interviews. We can't possible read them all." I reject that. You don't have to read the book. Just scan it for 15 to 20 minutes before the interview. Surely you can tell if the book is worthy of further scanning, and possibly a complete reading. But they are too busy...
Reset
at July 30, 2005 2:58 PM
"What's the cure for laziness? or is it incurable?
It costs nothing to learn about Islam on the web. It costs nothing to visit your library.
If only we had an intellectual stimulation pill that we could give them."
It's far deeper than mere laziness. The West in the last 50 years has undergone a sea change in thought. We are in the grips of a new Zeitgeist, by which it is predominately impossible to criticize Islam. Only a tiny, beleaguered minority can criticize and even condemn Islam -- and we remain on the lunatic fringe.
at July 30, 2005 4:17 PM
Yeah, Michael Graham is an example of what happens to that 'lunatic fringe.' Did that even get picked up by any of the major news and cable news networks?
Posted by: reset at July 30, 2005 6:39 PM
Though a visitor to the Saban Center, within the Brookings Institute, Flynt Leverett now has a job at Hogan & Hartson, Washington's largest law firm, with plenty of lobbying work. I do not know what work Hogan & Hartson does for Saudi Arabia, or Saudi investors. But I could not help but notice, in the list of disinteresed legal and business and lobbying sponsors of the "Al-Andalus Festival" put on by the "Mosaic Foundation" (as in "the three abrahamic faiths" and interfaith outreach and so on and so transparently forth), that the name of Hogan & Hartson does appear.
Here is a list of disinterested Underwriters, Benefactors, Sponsors, Patrons, and Supporters of the 2004 Benefit Dinner and Al-Andalus Festival, where one should not doubt that much was made of the wonders of Islamic Spain (i.e., the rule of Muslims over non-Muslims in Spain), and more than enough about that celebrated "Convivencia" we keep hearing so much about.
Give a shout when you find the name of Hogan & Hartson:
"Special Thanks
Mosaic is most grateful for the generous support of the 2004 Benefit Dinner and Al-Andalus Festival by our Underwriters, Benefactors, Sponsors, Patrons, and Supporters.
Underwriters
ChevronTexaco
Exxon Mobil
Occidental Petroleum
Safinvest, UK
Saudi Aramco
Benefactors
ConocoPhillips
The Boeing Company
General Motors
Lockheed Martin
Marathon Oil Corporation
Orascom Telecom Holding
Embassy of Qatar
Riggs National Corporation
Saks Fifth Avenue
Embassy of Saudi Arabia
Shell International
Sponsors
American International Services
Anadarko Petroleum
The Coca-Cola Company
Ford Motor Company
General Dynamics
Ghafari Associates
Halliburton Company
The IPR Group of Companies
Key Energy Services
The Legacy Group
Loeffler, Jonas & Tuggey
Neiman Marcus, Tyson’s Corner
Northrop Grumman/Vinnell
Qorvis Communications
Raytheon Company
Saks Jandel
Tiffany & Co.
Wachovia Bank
Patrons
Mahmoud M. Abdallah Foundation
Al-Ahram Beverages, Egypt
Bechtel Group
Embassy of Bahrain
BP
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Citibank/Citigroup
The Clinton Group
Contrack International
Mona and Sobhi El-Eita
Hogan & Hartson
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans
Kuwait Petroleum
Patton Boggs
Pfizer
Qatar Petroleum
Rock Creek Corporation
Mr. and Mrs. Harry Sargeant
Embassy of the United Arab Emirates
Van Duren Oil
Versace Boutique, Chevy Chase
Vinson & Elkins
Washington Group International
Washington Investment Partners
White & Case
Winson Partners Group
Supporters
Academy for Educational Development
American International Group
Amtec International
Abdulaziz Aseel
Baker Hughes
Mark Betts and Shelley Slade Betts
The Carlyle Group
Cartier Boutique, Chevy Chase
CMS Energy
Mr. and Mrs. J. Robert Collins, Jr.
ContiGroup Companies
Mr. and Mrs. Richard A. Debs
Doha Bank
Princess Wafa Fayyad
K&M Engineering and Consulting
Prema and Wallace Mathai-Davis
Northern Pharmacy
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company
Hon. and Mrs. George Salem
United Nations Foundation
Say, you didn't really expect H. & H. would put on its payroll not a lawyer but someone who is going to provide "strategic advice" on Middle Eastern affairs (we know what that means in the Washington law-and-lobbying firm context) and who may find time to give the firm's partners (the associates don't have time, for they are too busy billing those minutes to make sure the partners live in the style to which they have grown accustomed -- a big law firm is like a Ponzi Scheme, after all, where the Associates will have to be exploited and some booted out, and the ones who remain will in turn exploit newer Associates) lectures on how the American government should treat, with due respect, our loyal aly in that "60-year strategic partnership" and provide talking points for those jovial meetings with the Congressmen who have "worked with" Hogan & Hartson lobbybists and fixers in the past -- and no doubt would like to continue to do so, and are just as concerned as is Flynt Leverett that we should not listen to those who suggest such terrible things about that staunch and now much maligned ally, Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2005 7:32 PM
I have never minded too much our American government's long-standing unofficial policy of Realpolitik and brown-nosing lesser-evil wolves in the realistic context of the geopolitical & economic necessity of jockeying a world where there are lesser evils and greater evils.
Our current Realpolitik with regard to Saudi Arabia, however, needs to be controverted. It will be difficult, both for the incestuous reasons Hugh cites, and for the cultural reasons Hugh never cites (i.e., the PC Zeitgeist by which the West has been thralled for the past 50 years).
at July 30, 2005 7:59 PM
Metaxy, we may be on the lunatic fringe, because we criticize Islam, but we wouldn't if YOUR President had a brain and some curiousity, he doesn't.
Curious George is a book for lst Graders, but our President is anything but curious, in fact he epitomizes and reflects the mentality of those who elected him. These people look at Dubya and see, the marginal every man as President and that makes them feel good.
While that would be a good idea, it does not account for sheer mental laziness, the refusal to study Islam,
That statement from another poster is more accurate, Our President is mentally lazy, because his constituency is mentally lazy. Clinton made them feel inferior, because of his intellect and acumen, but Dubya makes them feel superior, because it doesn't take much (a 6th Grader will do) to be intellectually superior to Dubya.
The problem starts at the top, and like Truman said "The Buck stops here" but one thing Bush is adapt at, and in that he is an Arab, avoiding the acceptance of responsibility.
Put some brains in his head, and some fire in his belly, and detox him from his power trip, and his belief that he is gods representative in the White House.. and we won't be the "lunatic fringe" anymore.
Not even Faux News (the paragon of Right Wing pundits and Bushonian apologists) will stand up the Muslims. Imagine that even Rupert Murdoch caves into Saudi money and power. But if Bush and Blair started (and Bush has enough control over Blair to coerce him into going along with his fraud - the now disproven justification for deposing Saddam), to stand up to the Saudis and tell it like it is, his constituency and the media would follow.
BTW, the media is our governments handmaiden.
Posted by: Giaour at July 30, 2005 8:02 PM
"we wouldn't [be on the lunatic fringe] if YOUR President had a brain and some curiousity, he doesn't."
The main reason that President Bush (and Blair and Howard) cannot condemn Islam is due to the fact that the PC Zeitgeist has conquered the modern West over the past 50 years. The PC Zeitgeist is Leftist in origin and nature, but it has succeeded in brainwashing the majority of Republicans and Democrats alike.
Posted by: metaxy at July 30, 2005 8:20 PM
Thank Hugh and duly noted.
Posted by: reset at July 30, 2005 8:23 PM
Excuse my typos, I am doing other things around the house and checking in occasionally. Need to proof much better.
I really hate this lack of leadership in our government at this critical time. Not to mention the corruption that is blinding everyone who has influence. I bet the Saudis have their web woven into Fox as well. They are less dhimmi than all the others, but unfortunately that is not saying a lot.
Posted by: reset at July 30, 2005 8:27 PM
Yeah, Michael Graham is an example of what happens to that 'lunatic fringe.' Did that even get picked up by any of the major news and cable news networks?
Posted by: reset at July 30, 2005 06:39 PM
Check it out, go to his website. Maybe there's still some hope.
MICHAEL GRAHAM 'S WMAL RADIO STATION RECEIVED 10,000 EMAILS ...WE MUST FIGHT CAIR AND WIN THIS BATTLE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
PLEASE CONTINUE TO WRITE AND PROTEST EVERY DAY AND READ MICHAELS WEBSITE
http://michaelgraham.com/
at July 31, 2005 1:26 AM
Yeah, Michael Graham is an example of what happens to that 'lunatic fringe.' Did that even get picked up by any of the major news and cable news networks?
Posted by: reset at July 30, 2005 06:39 PM
Check it out, go to his website. Maybe there's still some hope.
MICHAEL GRAHAM 'S WMAL RADIO STATION RECEIVED 10,000 EMAILS ...WE MUST FIGHT CAIR AND WIN THIS BATTLE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
PLEASE CONTINUE TO WRITE AND PROTEST EVERY DAY AND READ MICHAELS WEBSITE
http://michaelgraham.com/
at July 31, 2005 1:27 AM
More "Moderate Muslims" - (reminds me of 'coming out')
Moderate UK Islamic Leader: No Such Thing As Al Qaeda
British police invited the most respected Islamic cleric in Birmingham to join them in a press conference promoting cooperation between Muslims and law enforcement.
They were shocked ... shocked! ... when Sheikh Mohammad Naseem proceeded to call Tony Blair a liar, and said DNA evidence is meaningless, the bombing suspects could have been “innocent passengers,” and there’s no such thing as Al Qaeda. (Hat tip: m.)
The most senior Islamic cleric in Birmingham claimed yesterday that Muslims were being unjustly blamed in the war on terrorism and that the eight suspects in the two bombing attacks on London “could have been innocent passengers”.
Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of the city’s central mosque, called Tony Blair a “liar” and “unreliable witness” and questioned whether CCTV footage issued of the suspected bombers was of the perpetrators. He said that Muslims “all over the world have never heard of an organisation called al-Qa’eda”.
Mr Naseem, who was speaking after police seized Yasin Hassan Omar in Birmingham, delivered his unprompted outburst when he was invited to a press conference with West Midlands police and Birmingham city council to help calm fears of racial or religious tension after the arrest. His comments shocked senior police officers. ...
To the obvious embarrassment of council officials and police standing next to him, Mr Naseem said the Government and security services “were not to be relied upon”.
He said: “Tony Blair has told lies on going to Iraq and in a court of law if a witness has proved to be a liar he ceases to be a reliable witness. So we cannot give our blind trust to the Government. To have that trust it is important that the process of law should be independent, open and transparent. I am also sad that unfortunately the impression has been given that Muslims are to be targeted in this war against terror. There seems to be a directive to target Muslims. Why do we not have an open mind about this?
“Muslim bashing seems to be more earnest than the need for national unity and harmony. Terrorists can be anybody - we will have to see [whether the bombers are Muslims]. The process is not open; the process is not transparent; the process is not independent. I do not have faith in the system as it stands.”
Mr Naseem is one of the most respected Muslims in the city and is considered a moderate. He has regular meetings with the chief constable to discuss religious harmony.
Mr Naseem said that while it was vital that terrorism was stamped out and that there was never any justification for it, the Government had not helped by going to war in Iraq.
Dismissing the Prime Minister’s insistence that the war had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, he said: “Tony Blair … is not going to be perceived as a reliable witness. His comments could motivate someone to take the law into his own hands. Some people have been caught but I have not seen any evidence. The process of law is not open.”
Asked about the suspects’ DNA being found at the scene of the first attacks, he said: “DNA can match you, but that does not mean you are going to commit a crime. Thousands of youths are passing by and caught on CCTV, so how do you know it is them?”
Posted by: Terminator at July 31, 2005 7:32 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)