Top Democrat Meets With Group With Ties To Hamas

[Mr. JOSHUA]

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU

Top Democrat meets Hamas-supporting group

Muslim organization seeks to impose worldwide Islamic theocracy


By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com




http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/stenyhoyer1.jpg
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

JERUSALEM – It was revealed yesterday a top U.S. Democratic congressman last week met a leader of Egypt's main opposition group, which has strong ties to Hamas and seeks to impose an Islamic theocracy throughout the Middle East and eventually around the world.

The meeting took place just one day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria last Wednesday against the recommendations of the White House drew widespread domestic criticism and also sharp praise from some Palestinian terror groups.

Visiting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met twice on Thursday with the head of the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni. One meeting took place at the Egyptian parliament and the second at the home of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Brotherhood spokesman Hamdi Hassan said.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo confirmed the meeting, but would not disclose what was discussed.

The Brotherhood's Hassan said Hoyer discussed with the group developments in the Middle East, the "Brotherhood's vision" and the status of opposition movements in Egypt.

The Brotherhood seeks the overthrow of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's regime and the creation of a region-wide Islamic caliph that would eventually spread around the world. The Hamas terror group, responsible for dozens of suicide bombings in Israel, was founded in 1987 as a military offshoot of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
Although there are some tactical differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas – the Brotherhood says it is committed to a non-violent, reformist approach to Islamic takeover – experts say they are concerned by the current level of cooperation between the two organizations.


Reuven Erlich, director of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at Israel's Center for Special Studies, highlighted recently captured Hamas posters and material from the West Bank and Gaza which list Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna as one of the most important figures to Hamas.

"We found al-Banna's face all over Hamas material. He is an important part of Hamas culture and ideology and is held by them in the highest regard," Erlich told WND.

Palestinian security sources close to Hamas told WND Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader Mahdi Akif has been serving as a replacement Hamas spiritual leader ever since Israel assassinated former spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin in March 2004.

"Whenever there is an organizational spiritual issue, Hamas takes it to Akif," said the Palestinian source. "He gave them the blessing to run in the elections and was instrumental in using Islamic tradition to deduce it was OK to join the government. The Brotherhood in essence is helping run Hamas. And Akif is the most important religious personality in the Hamas leadership right now."

Once notorious for assassinations and militant activity, the Brotherhood said it renounced violence in the 1970s and has instead been trying to gain influence in Egypt through running for office and leading social welfare programs.

Analysts say Mubarak considers the Brotherhood a major challenge to his government. It scored very well in the latest Egyptian elections, winning an unprecedented 20 percent of the Parliament and trouncing all other opposition parties in spite of widespread reports of massive election tampering on the part of Mubarak's National Democratic Party.

In previous visits to Egypt, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood members, although U.S. policy doesn't bar such meetings.

The Hoyer meeting took place a day after Pelosi became the most senior U.S. official to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad since Syria was widely blamed for assassinating former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005. Until then, the U.S. has largely enforced an isolation of Assad's regime.

Pelosi last week announced at a press conference she "determined that the road to Damascus is the road to peace."

"We came in friendship, hope," she said.

Syria, which signed a military alliance with Iran, openly hosts Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders. Israel says Syria has been allowing large quantities of weapons to be transported from its borders to the Lebanese-based Hezbollah militia, which last summer engaged in a war with the Jewish state. Syria has been accused of supporting the insurgency against U.S. troops in Iraq; and generating unrest in Lebanon.

Pelosi's and Hoyer's visits are the latest reports of Democrats meeting with terror supporting groups.

In December, WND reported a key Hamas official claimed the terror group held meetings in Europe with "important Democrats." He claimed the Democrats applauded Hamas' willingness to accept a long-term cease-fire with the Jewish state in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to what is known as the pre-1967 borders – meaning an evacuation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.
Stacie Paxton, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, told WND the party was not aware of any meeting.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55087

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

[vulpine]

Just great, what's next a little sit down with Osama. Maybe a little chai in a cave and the democrates could express to him and Mulla Omar that 9/11 was bad. They could also say If you don't mind and if it's not too much trouble please don't do anything like that again. And by the way when you get a chance please put a halt to your jihad if that's ok with you Mr. Osama.rofl

[Dasein]

Diplomacy is more than about just meeting with the people on your side, it is about working with people who disagree without, too. If we can engage Syria or the Muslim Brotherhood in dialogue, we should.

[Firetxmi]

Regardless, I take anything from WND with a grain (large one, maybe Kosher, maybe Sea) of salt.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Diplomacy is more than about just meeting with the people on your side, it is about working with people who disagree without, too. If we can engage Syria or the Muslim Brotherhood in dialogue, we should.

There is a world of difference between those you simply disagree with, and those who choose to operate outside the laws of civilization.

As a society, we have made the declaration that we will not deal with, or negotiate with terrorists. This is because if we demonstrate that terrorism works - i.e. they use it as a lever to gain concessions from us, and we give them what they want - then we have validated it as a legitimate political tool. We could therefore expect more terrorism, because we have shown them that it works. Which, apparently, is what Pelosi and Hoyer are determined prove.

<Edit>

Regardless, I take anything from WND with a grain (large one, maybe Kosher, maybe Sea) of salt.

Fair enough, but this was reported by CNN as well...
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=109233

[Firetxmi]

As a society, we have made the declaration that we will not deal with, or negotiate with terrorists.



A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News......

"He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.


Link: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=108920

[Dasein]

As a society, we have made the declaration that we will not deal with, or negotiate with terrorists. This is because if we demonstrate that terrorism works - i.e. they use it as a lever to gain concessions from us, and we give them what they want - then we have validated it as a legitimate political tool. We could therefore expect more terrorism, because we have shown them that it works. Which, apparently, is what Pelosi and Hoyer are determined prove.

This is simply absurd - the entirety of diplomacy is based upon terrrorism. It is the threat of terror, be it in the form of a suicide bomber or nuclear-tipped ICBM that brings us to the negotiating table in the first place. When Frederick the Great remarked that diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments, that is what he was talking about. There is always the element of terror, of fear, and of violence present, and should diplomacy break down or fail, then that violence will be unleashed upon the world. To say we do not engage in diplomacy with terrorists is tantamount to saying we do not engage in diplomacy.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

There is a world of difference between those you simply disagree with, and those who choose to operate outside the laws of civilization.

As a society, we have made the declaration that we will not deal with, or negotiate with terrorists. This is because if we demonstrate that terrorism works - i.e. they use it as a lever to gain concessions from us, and we give them what they want - then we have validated it as a legitimate political tool. We could therefore expect more terrorism, because we have shown them that it works. Which, apparently, is what Pelosi and Hoyer are determined prove.

<Edit>


Fair enough, but this was reported by CNN as well...
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=109233


We can go round and round about which media outlets are biased and which ones aren't.

Thats not the point of the discussion here.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News......

"He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.


I would point out that the "sources" for this article are either anonymous, or in the one case of a named source - is Iran. So far as I remember reading from reputable sources, the group has been disarmed and isolated - but the rest of this information is pure conjecture and spin at this point.

Now if all that could be shown to be true, I'd have a problem with it (and wonder who ok'd the funding, since we know who's in charge of the money now)


This is simply absurd - the entirety of diplomacy is based upon terrrorism. It is the threat of terror, be it in the form of a suicide bomber or nuclear-tipped ICBM that brings us to the negotiating table in the first place. When Frederick the Great remarked that diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments, that is what he was talking about. There is always the element of terror, of fear, and of violence present, and should diplomacy break down or fail, then that violence will be unleashed upon the world. To say we do not engage in diplomacy with terrorists is tantamount to saying we do not engage in diplomacy.

That's morally relative "gray area" crap - which is all the rage these days I'll grant you, since people seem to have lost their critical thinking skills. The West has a strict non-first-use policy on nuclear weapons, so your ICBM analogy is out the window. Our conventional forces go out of their way, and we spend billions of extra dollars on precision munitions, to only target combatants. According to your way of thinking, there is no difference between lobbing a JDAM at a fortified bunker on a military installation, and lobbing one into a school at lunchtime. If those are the new rules, we can wrap up this messy little war rather quickly, I'd imagine.

[Dasein]

That's morally relative "gray area" crap - which is all the rage these days I'll grant you, since people seem to have lost their critical thinking skills.

I would counter that the right has lost any sense of history. The history of European diplomacy is one fraught with undertones of extreme violence. Violence, often quite horrific and indiscriminate, was a normal part of policy, and often times, the threat of this violence was implicitly involved in diplomacy.



The West has a strict non-first-use policy on nuclear weapons, so your ICBM analogy is out the window.

Perhaps now, but during the Cold War, the balance of terror was very real, yet we were still able to sit down with the Soviets and eventually hammer out arms reduction agreements to reduce the tension between the two blocs. In fact, one might argue it was because of the threat of destruction hanging over us that we has no choice but to negotiate. Terror, in that case, worked, did it not?


Our conventional forces go out of their way, and we spend billions of extra dollars on precision munitions, to only target combatants. According to your way of thinking, there is no difference between lobbing a JDAM at a fortified bunker on a military installation, and lobbing one into a school at lunchtime. If those are the new rules, we can wrap up this messy little war rather quickly, I'd imagine.

In both cases, one is using violence. The target is largely incidental, what is important is the threat of violence and the subsequent damage that violence inflicts. Violence is necessary to bring both parties to the negotiating table when otherwise unwilling.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I would counter that the right has lost any sense of history. The history of European diplomacy is one fraught with undertones of extreme violence. Violence, often quite horrific and indiscriminate, was a normal part of policy, and often times, the threat of this violence was implicitly involved in diplomacy.

War is always an option - violence is very effective. But war is not terrorism.



Perhaps now, but during the Cold War, the balance of terror was very real, yet we were still able to sit down with the Soviets and eventually hammer out arms reduction agreements to reduce the tension between the two blocs. In fact, one might argue it was because of the threat of destruction hanging over us that we has no choice but to negotiate. Terror, in that case, worked, did it not?

That's confusing terror with terrorism. Had either side used those weapons in a first strike, it would have been a terrorist act. Instead we had the MAD doctrine, and in fact both sides did pledge to not use nukes first. If you're going to argue that fear is the same is action, we won't find much common ground. The Syrians and the Muslim Brotherhood don't just threaten in order to produce terror - they back it up with action.



In both cases, one is using violence. The target is largely incidental, what is important is the threat of violence and the subsequent damage that violence inflicts. Violence is necessary to bring both parties to the negotiating table when otherwise unwilling.

You're completely missing the most important aspect of terrorism - it's not about the means, it's about the target. An artillery shell hitting a tank is war, the same shell under a truck in a marketplace is terrorism. Just as the executioner's bullet is legal and the robbers is not.

If your personal belief system makes no moral distinction between dropping a 500lb bomb into a command post filled with soldiers who have sworn to perform that duty and bombing a church or school, well that's your right. It's a perfectly valid belief system but one I don't share.

If you subscribe to it, you must accept the idea that you are to answer for the actions of others (i.e. it is acceptable for the state to execute you because your neighbor committed a crime). And I would also assume that you would have no problem with the US and UK speeding up this whole process by dropping some W88's around the Mideast to bring people around to our way of thinking. If you're able to rationalize such moral equivalency, then you must also accept it from both sides.

[Dakota435]

You're completely missing the most important aspect of terrorism - it's not about the means, it's about the target. An artillery shell hitting a tank is war, the same shell under a truck in a marketplace is terrorism. Just as the executioner's bullet is legal and the robbers is not.

If your personal belief system makes no moral distinction between dropping a 500lb bomb into a command post filled with soldiers who have sworn to perform that duty and bombing a church or school, well that's your right. It's a perfectly valid belief system but one I don't share.

If you subscribe to it, you must accept the idea that you are to answer for the actions of others (i.e. it is acceptable for the state to execute you because your neighbor committed a crime). And I would also assume that you would have no problem with the US and UK speeding up this whole process by dropping some W88's around the Mideast to bring people around to our way of thinking. If you're able to rationalize such moral equivalency, then you must also accept it from both sides.

I might as well beat Dasein to the punch 2sheds. He will surely say that the bombing campaigns of WWII were terrorism, being "terror" bombings, ignoring the "total war" context of the time.

[LtVacan]

It speaks volumns that the Democrat leadership is willing to meet with dictators and terrorists but refuse to meet with the President of The United States.

[Rictor]

Playing six degrees of seperation is all too easy in the present-day Middle East

Condi Rice met with Abbas who is now in a joint government with Hamas.
or
Bush met with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim who has close ties to Iran's clerical government.
or
the US suppport al-Maliki who's a friend of al-Sadr who's responsible for killing US troops.
or
Bush has repeatdly met Musharraf who's ISI is allegedly supporting the Taliban.

[Dasein]

War is always an option - violence is very effective. But war is not terrorism.

War is not terrorism, war is far worse than terrorism.



That's confusing terror with terrorism. Had either side used those weapons in a first strike, it would have been a terrorist act. Instead we had the MAD doctrine, and in fact both sides did pledge to not use nukes first. If you're going to argue that fear is the same is action, we won't find much common ground. The Syrians and the Muslim Brotherhood don't just threaten in order to produce terror - they back it up with action.

The actual destruction caused by terrorism is fairly minor, and of virtually no strategic importance. The effect of terrorism is the fear - the terror - it produces in a civilian population. I am not confusing terror with terrorism, but rather recognizing that the end result and intent of terrorism is to produce terror, and in this regards, it is similar to the Balance of Terror and MAD doctrines of the Cold War. To get back to the point, it is this terror that brings people to the negotiating table, it is this terror that facilitates diplomacy as parties seek to end or avoid the terror produced by nuclear weapons or suicide bombings.


You're completely missing the most important aspect of terrorism - it's not about the means, it's about the target. An artillery shell hitting a tank is war, the same shell under a truck in a marketplace is terrorism. Just as the executioner's bullet is legal and the robbers is not.

So how is area bombing in World War II not terrorism? Because it was done in the context of total war?

What is the statute of limitations on terrorism - is the US a terrorist state for it's actions during World War II? Russia? Germany? Japan? What about Cold War conflicts? The US and USSR both supported pretty unsavory people in the course of the Cold War, does that make us terrorists, or at least state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran? After all, Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah makes them pariahs, but the US's support of right-wing terrorists in Latin America is acceptable?

[Jobu]

I would counter that the right has lost any sense of history. The history of European diplomacy is one fraught with undertones of extreme violence. Violence, often quite horrific and indiscriminate, was a normal part of policy, and often times, the threat of this violence was implicitly involved in diplomacy.

No offense to the Europeans on this board but it was "European Diplomacy" which led to WWI and WWII. It's not exactly a model to be followed.

The right hasn't lost sense of European history, we've learned from it and are determined not to make the same mistakes. I wish the left would learn as well.

[Dasein]

No offense to the Europeans on this board but it was "European Diplomacy" which led to WWI and WWII. It's not exactly a model to be followed.

The right hasn't lost sense of European history, we've learned from it and are determined not to make the same mistakes. I wish the left would learn as well.

The right has not demonstrated any abilitiy to learn form those mistakes. Bush presented Iraq with demands very much like those presented to Serbia by Austria-Hungary, and the result was the same. The right seems to equate all diplomacy with appeasement and weakness, as if one only negotiates because one cannot wage war.

[Jobu]

The right has not demonstrated any abilitiy to learn form those mistakes. Bush presented Iraq with demands very much like those presented to Serbia by Austria-Hungary, and the result was the same. The right seems to equate all diplomacy with appeasement and weakness, as if one only negotiates because one cannot wage war.

12 years of UN resolutions and sanctions is the same as the Hapsburgs did to Serbia?

What world are you from again?

[Dasein]

No, presenting Serbia with a list of unfeasible and unfilfillable demands is the same as presenting Iraq with a list of unfeasible and unfulfillable demands. Neither Austria-Hungary nor the United States had any other plan than war.

[Jobu]

No, presenting Serbia with a list of unfeasible and unfilfillable demands is the same as presenting Iraq with a list of unfeasible and unfulfillable demands. Neither Austria-Hungary nor the United States had any other plan than war.

Demands like "live up to your cease-fire agreement from 1991"?

Oh, how unreasonable! lol

[Dasein]

No, demands like prove you have no WMDs.

[Jobu]

No, demands like prove you have no WMDs.

And had he cooperated from the start, maybe he could have proven it.

Instead, we had to wait until his son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, defected in 1995 to even find out that Saddam had an ongoing biological weapons program. We thought it was limited to nuclear and chemical at that point.

Once again, were they unreasonable demands or was it Saddam's own actions which caused distrust? What happened to the tons of leftover materials never accounted for by UNSCOM? If they were destroyed, why wasn't it done verifiably?

Just like Austria/Hungary and Serbia indeed. lol

[2Sheds_Jackson]

No, demands like prove you have no WMDs.

We both know that was never a demand. The requirement was to simply allow inspections, and the UNESCO inspection process itself would prove there were no WMD. Deceptively simple.

I must say that you don't seem interested in pursuing a serious line of argument on any of these issues - instead preferring to offer non-sequitur and anecdotal references from history that are somehow supposed to mean something. My favorite so far was your comparison of US action in WWII to today's terror attacks. This represents a failure to account for temporal context - as if you expect human morality to remain constant so that one can easily apply a uniform morality to all events throughout history. It makes for a juicy rhetorical exchange, but it's ultimately a useless exercise.

[Dasein]

My favorite so far was your comparison of US action in WWII to today's terror attacks. This represents a failure to account for temporal context - as if you expect human morality to remain constant so that one can easily apply a uniform morality to all events throughout history. It makes for a juicy rhetorical exchange, but it's ultimately a useless exercise.

Many people regarded terror bombing as quite morally repugnant at the time. Picasso didn't paint Guernica to glorify terror bombing, that's for sure.

Of course, if you take a relativist approach, how can we not argue that terrorism as practised by Al Qaeda is justified, based on the context in which the attacks occur? Either we dispense with moral arguments entirely, or we accept some level of uniformity in moral arguments concerning just conduct in war.

[Rictor]

Anyone care to comment on the many direct and indirect contacts that members of the administration have had with groups unfriendly to the US? Check the first page for some examples. Or how about funding pro-Sunni "activists" groups in Lebanon with suspected links to al-Q?