"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Monday, August 06, 2007

Organization of the Islamic Conference Allies in the War on Terror

It’s always a pleasure when Mark Steyn’s work at National Review is available to the general non-subscribing public because it is at that time that I feel the most comfortable quoting and linking to something he has written.

In the July 16th issue of National Review and available at Steyn Online is “Denial is a river in Washington.” In it he takes the various Western nations governments to task in their overly obsessive PC etiquette in conducting the war on terror. Read it and enjoy, but I am posting from within his essay to the references he makes to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Western leaders, including most recently Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who was quoted as saying ‘“Any attempt to identify a murderous ideology with a great faith such as Islam is wrong, and needs to be denied.”’ This is in line with Brown’s disallowing the use of the word “Muslim” in any reference or connection with terrorism, as Steyn quoted from The Daily Express, “The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims.”

How we are expected to get anywhere in the war on terror is unknowable if we cannot in all seriousness use that which recent history is providing as example I do not know.

One of those groups that work to protect the Muslim identity is the Organization of the Islamic Conference; which in and of itself is very honorable and commendable. This honor is undeserved however when one of the conferences guidelines is to identify various terrorist entities as not terrorist due to their definition of the struggle.

Quoting Steyn with four quotes from the organizations 2002 “Declaration on International Terrorism;” the four that Steyn quotes are:

“5. We reject any attempt to link Islam and Muslims to terrorism as terrorism has no association with any religion, civilization or nationality;”

Fine. Whatever. Religion-of-peace boilerplate.

“10. We reject any attempt to link terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people in the exercise of their inalienable right to establish their independent state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital;”

Er, okay. That gives a pass to Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and whatnot…

“11. We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism, which constitutes an impediment to the global struggle against terrorism;”

…and that pretty much absolves Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and everybody else. So are there any actual terrorists operating anywhere today that this “International Declaration” is designed to cover?

“12. We condemn Israel for its escalating…”

Why then do we and our leaders stoop and bow to this group and others like it (C.A.I.R. anyone) as though we have the same intended outcome? We certainly do not want to offend anyone and turn them off from assisting in wiping this current scourge from the earth; but if truth offends it is not the messengers fault.

We, nor can anyone else get to the root of any problem by ignoring the basis of the problem or those involved from the very beginning.

One point of interest that Steyn did not quote was the laughable connection to the U.N. when in regard to the groups currently involved in “national” struggles as opposed to “terrorism:”

“14. We reaffirm our commitment to international action in combating international terrorism undertaken in conformity with the principles of the Charter of United Nations, including the principles of non-intervention in internal affairs and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as international law and relevant international conventions and instruments;”

Would the conference recognize this “charter” if it hadn’t at first identified that which it refuses to see as terrorist? No it would not since it would not fit within the “charter.”

The OIC is an organization that leadership looks to in the joint effort of combating terrorism, yet the OIC’s bottom line is combating the war on terror, leaving time and space to allow for the possibility of victory in behalf of terrorist organizations. This is very apparent when one reads the Declaration on International Terrorism; and in closing the offering of the conferences “Convention on Combating International Terrorism, which begins:

Pursuant to the tenets of the tolerant Islamic Sharia which reject all forms of violence and terrorism, and in particular specially those based on extremism and call for protection of human rights, which provisions are paralleled by the principles and rules of international law founded on cooperation between peoples for the establishment of peace;”

Wondering already where they get the gall? Read on…

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2437899208518292632

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs

  • Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Nuke's news and views, Webloggin, Wyvern dreams, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks