More from Mohamed El-Wacko

Babble on.

I have no idea if Mohamed Elmasry is a good computer engineering professor. I do know that the national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress is a political nutbar dressed up in prettier-than-Osama language.

Evidence? Here, he talks about "Zionist racism" in the "1930s and 40s" - right about the time the Nazis were exterminating six million Jews. Here, he equates the 'fundamentalist' Osama Bin Laden with the 'fundamentalist' G.W. Bush. Here, he posits the "U.S. is pledged to maintain not only a secure Jewish state, but an expanding Jewish mini-empire carved out of its illegally occupied Palestinian territories." Yeah, a land an IDF pilot can overfly east to west in ninety seconds qualifies as a mini-empire for sure. Don't say you weren't warned.

Elmasry's latest garbage is an 'open letter' to the 9/11 commission published as 'web-exclusive comment' by the Globe and Mail. Now, I've had one of my own pieces published as 'web-exclusive comment' - which is journalist-speak for 'no-pay comment' - so I know the standards there are exceedingly low. But this is ridiculous.

That this computer engineering professor feels qualified to comment on an internal American report on terrorism is unsurprising. "I am a Canadian Muslim and care a great deal about your country..." and PRESTO! you should care about my opinion on international affairs. Moving beyond the hubris.

Elmasry starts off diplomatically, praising the writers of the report for their "hard work, dedication, and perseverance" in producing this "truly historic 585-page document." He then gingerly steps into his attack, asking lame questions like "[Is terrorism] a more, or less, heinous crime than (for example) political assassinations, which violently target specific persons? And how will your advocacy of extreme (even lethal) measures to combat terrorists stop these crimes?" Two answers. Israel targets violent criminals, not entire populations (what, Elmasry thought anyone could miss his 'veiled' reference to Israel's willingness to atomize Hamas leaders as quickly as they're chosen?). And since a dead terrorist can't blow anything up, killing him is an effective policy.

Yawn. This is the best the Globe could find?

Elmasry is self-contradictory. First, he asks and answers: "Is there a link between what is happening in Iraq and Israel, and what you term "worldwide Islamist terrorism?" Would establishing such a link help the U.S. combat it? I respectfully submit to you that there is not, and it would not."

Really? Then why does he go on to say this? "[A] deep point of contention is the adamant U.S. belief (against all logic and on-the-ground evidence) that Israel can-do-no-wrong. America's continual commitment to supply that country with the military hardware to kill Palestinians, and to help deny them basic human rights, speaks volumes."

OK, I have to apologize for picking on Elmasry's Israel-bashing. He can't help it, it's reflexive. There should be a support group for people like him: "Hi, I'm Mohamed, and it's been a week since I last ranted against the evil Zionist entity." But really, does any serious observer truly believe the U.S. sells Israel F-16's specifically so they can kill Palestinians? Enough beating my head against that particular brick wall.

Svend Robinson could have ghost-written this next part: "We must also learn why people commit such crimes [as terrorism]; we must address real issues of social justice at home; we must declare and maintain a relentless war on poverty, unemployment, lack of education, and basic medical insurance - factors that have left millions of Americans living substandard lives in the richest nation on earth." Did you get that? Difficulty accessing medical insurance in America is relevant to the war on terror. Who knew?

The real kicker in Elmasry's meandering screed, though, is this:

"The enemy is not 'terrorism'," you said. "It is the threat specifically by Islamist terrorism, by [Osama] bin Laden and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both." How can the use of terms such as "Islamist terrorism" reassure Muslims who are working to persuade our media and politicians not to use anti-Islam language? What is really achieved by telling everyone that "The enemy is not Islam, the great faith, but a perversion of Islam." Where, in essence, is the "perversion"? (my emphasis)

Well, in my wildest imagination, I don't know where the perversion could be. Unless it's in drawing a direct connection between heinous terrorist acts and Islamic proselytizing, as OBL does himself in a November 2001 videotape.

Those youth who conducted the operations did not accept any fiqh in the popular terms, but they accepted the fiqh that the prophet Muhammad brought. Those young men (...inaudible...) said in deeds, in New York and Washington, speeches that overshadowed all other speeches made everywhere else in the world. The speeches are understood by both Arabs and non-Arabs–even by Chinese. It is above all the media said. Some of them said that in Holland, at one of the centers, the number of people who accepted Islam during the days that followed the operations were more than the people who accepted Islam in the last eleven years. I heard someone on Islamic radio who owns a school in America say: “We don’t have time to keep up with the demands of those who are asking about Islamic books to learn about Islam.” This event made people think (about true Islam) which benefited Islam greatly.

Either Elmasry is proposing OBL and his band of terror-trash aren't really Muslims, or he's saying their brand of Islam isn't a 'perversion' of the religion. You have to wonder how he would back up either of those positions if confronted. "Ready, aim, fire - OW! My foot!"

In fact, that sums up this entire article. It is a long, painful dismantling of whatever credibility Elmasry had before he sat down at his computer and started typing.

Babble off.