Friday, August 12, 2011

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

As the House hearings on Islamic recruitment and domestic radicalization wind down, the Obama administration thought it would be a good idea to counter the inevitable findings of the committee. Figuring that the best defense is a good offense, the administration has published a policy paper entitled: "Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Extremism in the United States." You can read the document here.

Repeating itself almost like a case of literary hiccups, the document is designed to convince gullible Americans that the best way to combat Islamic terrorism is to utilize high-profile and well-funded Islamic organizations to do the fighting for us. It smacks of recruiting Nazis to counter Hitler. Or communists to counter Castro. It also smacks of the deaf, dumb and blind whistling-past-the-graveyard liberal mindset which won't call a war a war, or call terrorists terrorists.

Note that the words "terrorism" and "Islamic" are used, but almost never in conjunction with each other. As so often happens in these documents, the first mention of domestic terrorists is awarded to neo-Nazis. You know, the guys who flew Fokkers and Messerschmidts into the World Trade Center. Lest you think they might be ignoring terrorism originating in Jihadistan, the report mentions al-Qa'ida in the first paragraph, so as to single it out as a nasty group divorced entirely from mainstream Islam.

At that point in the opening page, signed by His Majesty Barack Obama, "Islamic terrorism" essentially disappears to be replaced by "violent extremism." As The One says: "Protecting America's communities from al-Qa'ida's hateful ideology is not the work of government alone. Communities--especially Muslim American communities whose children, families and neighbors are being targeted by al-Qa'ida--are often best positioned to take the lead because they know their communities best." Well, there's a revelation. Al-Qa'ida isn't recruiting at the local Baptist churches. Whoda thunk it?

Thereafter in the main body of the document, the writers repeat, ad nauseam, that associating Islam with terrorism leads to terrorism. That's a thought that is coming to full fruition after being bandied about ever since 9/11. If you think and talk happy thoughts about Islam, the problem will go away, particularly if you have the right Muslim organizations helping to get the message out that Islam is the religion of peace. Organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist plans.

While the government can help, local communities and prominent civilian organizations are in the forefront of combating the outbreak of neo-Nazi, radical Christian, disaffected youth, and the occasional Muslim extremist attacks. And they must be encouraged, yea, even supported by the government. While we're at it, we must make sure that local law enforcement assists in getting the word out that rare "violent extremists" who are only incidentally Muslim must be countered by "good Muslim" groups such as CAIR. Why am I reminded of San Francisco former Mayor Willie Brown's plan to end gang violence on the City's buses and trains by hiring gang members as security guards?

Quintan Wiktorowicz is the main inspiration for the policy paper. Would you like to hazard a guess as to where he is coming from? Well, after 9/11, he authored several treatises on how al-Qaeda (my preferred spelling) must be distinguished from moderate Muslim organizations such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. He also distinguishes between good Salafists and bad Salafists (a very violent offshoot of the Brotherhood). That's a bit like distinguishing between the SS and the Gestapo. His arguments haven't changed with time, and now the President of one of the largest Muslim nations on earth has singled him out to plot American strategy to bring Islam into mainstream America and deflect violent extremism.

The underlying philosophy of Barack Obama, as evidenced by this paper and his choice of the authors, is that if the fox keeps killing your chickens, put the fox in charge of the henhouse. The paper actually suggests that the most devout Muslims are the ones who are best for combating radicalism. "Very religious Muslims are the most resistant to radicalization while those most likely to be radicalized lack a good grounding in Islam." Very religious Muslims like bin-Laden, al-Awlaki, and Adam Gadahn ("Azzam the American")?

The great patriotic and anti-terrorist organizations of CNN, NPR, the New York Times and the Huffington Post have all praised the report. The Times went so far as to include the opinion of Political Research Associates, but only referred to PRA as "a liberal group." In fact, PRA is a wingnut organization that proclaims that Christians are plotting to take over the American government. The Times emphasized the wisdom of PRA's and the ACLU's concept that Islamic terrorism must be soft-pedaled when recruiting law enforcement to assist in searching for violent extremists. They want no serious discussion or investigation of widespread Islamic terrorism, and so must reduce a few hundred million Muslims to the equivalent status of the lone Oslo "Christian mass murderer" or Turner Diaries nutcase Timothy McVeigh.

As Daniel Greenfield puts it: "The Orwellian blankness of the new strategy is a spate of ignorance to mask the truth of terrorism. The enemy is reduced to a social problem, terrorism to violent extremism and the war on terror to programs teaching Muslims about the dangers of violent extremism on the internet. The same dead-end European counter-terrorism strategies imported to the United States." Indeed, there are no Muslim terrorists, there are only misguided disaffected youths. He believes that "the new strategy begins with Obama carefully using the Arabic transcription spelling of 'Usama' and 'al-Qa-ida,' and ends with cautioning that, strong religious beliefs should never be confused with violent extremism. Unless you're Christian, of course."

Personally, I prefer to wait for the report coming out of the House committee chaired by Rep. Peter King (R-New York). More importantly, I will wait for the committee's recommendations and the list of organizations that the committee believes should be involved in countering growing domestic Islamic terrorist recruiting. Will CAIR be among them?


22 comments:

TJ said...

"The underlying philosophy of Barack Obama, as evidenced by this paper and his choice of the authors, is that if the fox keeps killing your chickens, put the fox in charge of the henhouse."

The above really says it all. Thanks Lawhawk.

LawHawkRFD said...

TJ: It is a sad summary of Obama's leadership, but the description seems apt.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
Why is it that bo originating such nonsense is not surprising?
Some how the left has lost sight of what the real world is and how it works.
When hijacking was in only once did that happen to a Russian airplane.
Speznats operatives killed the high jackers and sent their heads home in a bag. The bags went with a note that next time this happened the perps entire families would be included in the clean up.
Interesting how bo was so responsible for killing Bin Ladin but to take that same attitude toward all of those who embrace and followed him is verboten.
I cannot get past his statement in his book that he would have to side with Islam in a world confrontation.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: After "man-made disasters" and "kinetic military action," I suppose nothing should surprise us. Still, Obama's inability to talk straight continues to surprise me anyway. How can any one man be so completely tone-deaf and blind to what is going on around him?

LL said...

How can any one man be so completely tone-deaf and blind to what is going on around him?

He's a pathological narcissist. When you look at the definition, it fits 100%. In his world, it all revolves around him. Sociopathic people like that (you and I ran into them all the time in the defense chair in a criminal proceeding) are often completely immune to the suffering of others or the needs of anything beyond their own selfish world.

Maybe if his mother stopped breast feeding him before he turned 7, it would have helped? Who knows? The American people made a grave mistake electing him - but I don't know if the other choice would have been better or worse in the long run.

LawHawkRFD said...

LL: It was a rhetorical question. LOL

I don't think even John McCain could have mucked things up this badly.

StanH said...

Everything is relative man. You can just imagine the skewed logic that went into the creation of that document, moral relativism run amuck. Speaking for myself, this was exactly what I expected from Barry’s administration, liberal nonsensical gobbledygook.

rlaWTX said...

"liberal nonsensical gobbledygook"

well said, StanH!

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: At least from his public stance, Bush was naive about Islam and terrorism. He mouthed the "Islam means peace" mantra, and talked about our "Muslim friends" in the Middle East. Obama is actively involved in going way beyond that position. Whether it's simply his inability to distinguish friend from foe, or a conscious preference for Islamic thinking, or a deeply-ingrained and skewed concept of moral relativism, he is exercising every effort to cloud reality about Islamist terrorism. The danger is great. Pretending it doesn't exist, or is comparable to isolated lone wolf self-proclaimed "Christian" terrorism only increases the danger. Putting your head in the sand is just another way of assuring that you're going to get shot in the ass.

rlaWTX said...

another awesome line...
"Putting your head in the sand is just another way of assuring that you're going to get shot in the ass."

(and not just because LawHawk agreed w/ me!)

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: Well, it ain't gonna make Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, but I'm glad you liked it.

AndrewPrice said...

Yep, just heard about the 11th circuit. This wasn't at all unexpected (in fact, we predicted it (here's a link to a discussion of the lower court ruling (LINK)). Still, it's good it finally happened. Now the Supremes will get to look at it and I'm 80/20 that they will strike down Obamacare.

Good for us.

Joel Farnham said...

Nice post LawHawk.

The only good Muslim is a non-practicing one.

Now, I think history will eventually record that Obama is a Muslim. He has shown that he is one too many times.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Yep. I just wasn't sure whether the 11th Circuit would strike the entire act or just the mandate part. Now we know. I agree on what it looks like at the Supreme Court. As we know, the Supreme Court is less reticent to strike an entire act of Congress than are district courts of appeal. Severability is a possibility, but I think they'll look at what the act would accomplish without the mandate and realize that the mandate truly cannot be severed. Bye, bye Obamacare.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I truly believe that Obama is not religious at all. He's a convenient Christian for vote purposes, but there's no depth to his actual belief. I would consider black liberation theology to be closest to what he might believe. On the other hand, I don't think he's a secret Muslim. I believe that is part of his personality disorder that impels him to adore and respect the father who abandoned him. Since his father was a Muslim, he is incapable of looking at Islam realistically.

My best guess is that if he believes in God at all, he's one of those who think Allah, Ya Weh, and Jesus Christ are all just different manifestations of the one true God. It's a dangerous mistake that many genuine Christians also make.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I remember you didn't hate Obama, just didn't like his policies too. I said History will show that Obama is a Muslim. My only hope now is that Obama doesn't give up the launch codes to his brethren prior to him leaving office.

PS Note to self: I must remember to proofread my comments. Sorry.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I don't hate Obama? LOL

Tennessee Jed said...

I read the document and can only describe it as "crap." it seems the biggest fear is to not create a "Muslim backlash" which could lead to radicalizing more "moderate" muslims. It is a prime example of wasted taxpayer dollares. We used to see this kind of white paper b.s. in thje corporate world as well.

On a brighter note (I think) is: I wish Newt Gingrich didn't have so much baggage. Last night, he came off best to me. Pawlenty doomed himself. Romney was incredibly unimpressive.

BevfromNYC said...

So basically if I just don't associate the fleas or rats with causing the Plague, the fleas, rats and Plague should have gone away. It should have nothing to do with going after the source of the disease or antibiotics at all, right? What's that called? Oh, yeah, "wishful" or as I like to call it "magical" thinking.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Nice parallel. And I agree entirely.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I had received a large group of anonymous comments on your last post entitled RNC Supports Constitution, Electoral College. Interesting comments but ultimately it loses because he advocates changing something that ain't broke.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: And if it ain't broke, we know what comes next. If you're a conservative, you simply say "leave it alone." If you're a liberal, you say "it isn't working for us, so let's fiddle with it until it is broken."

I don't put much stock in anonymous comments. Some people have trouble getting an avatar, but signing in is simple without any need for becoming a recognized Blogger commenter. If it looks like I have an anonymous hit-and-run person, or a troll, I feel perfectly free to delete the comment. But I do respond to anonymous comments which look legitimate. Just somebody having trouble figuring out how to sign on. One of our regular commenters consistently had problems signing in, but it was clear from the comments that the author was legitimate. Most are not.

Post a Comment