In June 2016 Osama Saeed Bhutta became director of communications of Amnesty International, he is connected to British structures of Muslim Brotherhood.
Information regarding this appeared on websites monitoring Muslim Brotherhood only at the end of October.
However Bhutta’s carrier is worth analysing and also casts doubt on credibility of Amnesty International, especially in light of its condemnation of “hunt for British terrorists in Iraq” that was commisioned to British special forces, SAS, by the government.
Official note mentions, that Bhutta worked as a PR consultant for Al-Jazeera TV station and that he was a candidate in parliamentary elections in Scotland, where he comes from. It doesn’t mention though, that he was head of, connected with the islamists, Scottish Islamic Organisation, which was frequently platform for radical Muslim preachers. He resigned from this function, when the organisation was faced with shutdown due to the embezzlement of £200.000 of public funds.
„Are AI’s campaigns against killing islamists in Iraq by the SAS a result of the nomination of the islamist for the director of communications?”
Earlier Bhutta was a member of Islamist Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), where he advocated for global caliphate, which wouldn’t be conflicting with democratic institutions.
He supported sharia law and wanted to prohibit caricatures of Mahomet, not because they would ridicule prophet of Islam but because „one doesn’t make images of the Prophet, full stop”.
In defense of hate preacher Anwar Al-Awlaki, arested in Yemen in 2006 Bhutta wrote:
„Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki was being atacked in USA, because two of the 9/11 terrorists happened to pray in his mosque. Many of my Muslim readers either know him personally or listened his lectures. He wasn’t teaching anything other than peace and I pray he will be able to do it again”.
Bhutta claimed later that he wrote in defense of Awlaki before the latter was radicalised but the evidence of his radicalism before 2006 is overwhelming, including that of his relations with terrorists which weren’t only occasional.
Bhutta, despite of those statements was however opposed to terrorism and helped organising demonstrations against it. One can conclude, that Quilliam Foundation, former Muslim radicals, rightly so consider him a representative of political Islam. Without doubt he is a person of contradictions: on one hand he claims, that governments should be held accountable to voters, on the other hand he considers people like antisemite Jusuf Al-Kardawi as prominent scholars.
The choice made by Amnesty shows, that organisation, whose aim was to defend the rights of prisoners loses its credibility, especially so that its communications are directed by the Islamists’ sympathiser, who praises preachers of hate, although officially distances himself from terrorism.
Are AI campaigns against killing terrorists in Iraq by armed forces result of such nominations?