Following the November terror attacks in Paris, the GMBDW reported on statements about the attacks issued by US Muslim Brotherhood groups. As we wrote at that time:
Needless to say, as they do following all prominent terrroist attacks, US Muslim Brotherhood organizations were quick to condemn the horrific violence in Paris on Friday. Nevertheless, despite many years of practice in composing such condemnations, the very same Brotherhood organizations often cannot seem to resist the opportunity to use these tragedies to make self-serving statements regarding their own agendas. As an example we highlighted another MPAC statement trumpeting its relationship with US law enforcement:
Yet again the head of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has taken the opportunity of the San Bernardino terror attacks to co-author an editorial along with an LAPD official titled “Why a partnership between Muslims and law enforcement is so crucial to fighting terrorism.” The editorial begins:
December 4, 2015 The mass shooting in San Bernardino is growing in complexity with a terrorism component now added to the investigation. Once the dust settles and we try to move forward, a partnership between religious communities and law enforcement is crucial in helping prevent future incidents of terrorism.
A unique partnership between the Muslim community in Los Angeles and law enforcement was formalized after 9/11, one that could be replicated in communities across the country. Law enforcement leaders set up quarterly forums for the Muslim community to raise issues with the police, raising grievances or offering suggestions. Within any community, police gather intelligence, but a longer-term strategy rests on community engagement and dialogue.
We can’t prevent every case, including the shootings in San Bernardino. Law enforcement officials know they can’t arrest their way out of a larger terrorism problem. And Muslim leaders know they can’t just issue press releases condemning the problem for it to disappear.
Partnerships can be controversial. Some in law enforcement believe that inviting Muslims to the table is like inviting the fox to guard the hen house. And some the civil rights community believe that partnership endorses heavy-handed tactics against minorities. And then some in the Muslim community believe that the government only engages them when it involves national security.
No, a partnership won’t eliminate all potential for terrorism. But without help from local communities, law enforcement cannot deal with the problem of terrorism by only looking at the criminal side. Law enforcement must focus on a criminal component, while communities focus more on an ideological role, but the two go hand-in-hand.
A partnership between religious communities and law enforcement optimizes the forces fighting larger problems with violence and terrorism. Law enforcement officials must be able to identify what is Islamic within American Muslim communities, and what is terrorism that has nothing to do with any religion.
Read the rest here.
So once again, and before the investigation of the San Bernardino attacks has even been completed, MPAC is again claiming that a partnership with “Muslims”, in fact meaning itself, is a vital part of US counter-terrorism strategy despite the notable lack of evidence that MPAC either actually represents US Muslims or that its vaunted partnership with law enforcement has had any demonstrable and positive impact on US Muslim communities. In fact, as we have long noted in our profile on MPAC:
MPAC has since developed into the political lobby arm of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and has opposed almost every counterterrorism action proposed or carried out by the U.S. government, often suggesting that the efforts were aimed at the U.S. Muslim community. MPAC has also acted to support a variety of Palestinian terrorist organizations as well as facilitating a wider range of terrorism by defending or justifying violence carried out by Islamic groups. Nevertheless, MPAC has developed particularly extensive relationships with agencies of the U.S. government including meetings with the Department of Justice and the FBI.
In January of this year, we noted similar behavior by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which used the occasion of the terrorist attack on the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo to position itself as a defender of free speech despite the fact that of its most important leaders had called for worldwide “blasphemy laws” in connection with the Danish cartoon controversy. CAIR is another important part of the US Muslim Brotherhood.
The GMBDW has seen no value in cataloging the now routine condemnations of terrorist incidents by the US Brotherhood groups but instead suggests that in light of the pattern discussed above, that all such statements be taken with a large grain of salt.