More of CAIR's follies  

D.C Watson

006/02/03

As the “religion of peace” runs rampant, it has several blockers in front of it. One of those blockers is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). For over a decade, this organization, rather than turning in performances that are in accordance with its own “mission statement”,  has been at the forefront of confronting Islam's critics with name calling campaigns, and attempting to dumb down the American people, including America's impressionable public and private school students. 
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7358
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/press_001_04 

They have gone after media personalities who criticize Islam and the behavior of Muslims, and have demanded one apology after another. As some of their former officers are in prison or have been deported for committing terror and fraud related crimes, they remain persistent with these activities:  

Attacked by the CAIR:  

Radio personality Paul Harvey

Anti-CAIR founder Andrew Whitehead

 Comedian Jackie Mason 

Congressman Tom Tancredo: (He met with Muslims, yet refused to meet with CAIR)

Congressman Cass Ballenger 

Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer 

Author Daniel Pipes 

Radio talk show host Michael Graham (fired) 

Radio personality Dr. Laura Schlesinger

Counter terrorism expert Steve Emerson 

It would appear that this Muslim group, in many aspects, has failed to understand that this type of maneuvering has greatly diminished their credibility and importance. Yet, they appear to have taken the initiative to hide the truth about their faith from the American public, just like good, dedicated little puppets would.  

Would CAIR step up and publicly debate the measures taken by their beloved “Prophet” to finance his new found religion? 

Would they like to tell everyone how many hundreds of mid scale to full scale wars Muslims have been involved in from the Muhammad era to present day? Battles, overthrows, conquests, invasions, and raids.
http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm
http://www.carm.org/islam/islam_chronology.htm  

Would they like to explain to everyone why Muslim women are made to pray behind a curtain or in different rooms inside American mosques, and how this practice became even more “wide spread” from 1994, as was written in the CAIR 2000 Mosque report?  

Would they like to stand in front of the American people and explain their call for donations link that led to the Holy Land Foundation shortly after the 9/11 Muslim attacks on the United States ? The same Holy Land Foundation that was shut down by our government for financing terrorists?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12470  

And, would they be willing to divulge to the American people exactly, and truthfully, why they declined to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security on September 10, 2003? 

This time around, they have taken their self absorption straight to the front of the class.  

Before the State of the Union Address was to be delivered by President Bush on January 31, 2006, the representatives from the Council on American Islamic Relations sent a letter to the President, telling him that there was certain "loaded and imprecise" terminology that he should avoid when speaking to the nation. 

From the column: "You have stated repeatedly that the war on terror is not a war on Islam. Unfortunately, the use of loaded and imprecise terminology by our nation's representatives has often served to promote that negative perception." 

"When you describe America's efforts to fight terrorism and spread democracy worldwide in Tuesday's address, I think it would be best to avoid the use of hot-button terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire." 

"As you said in the past, 'this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.' However, I believe the repeated rhetorical linkage of Islam to terms of violence and extremism is counterproductive and complicates our legitimate foreign policy initiatives."

"American Muslims stand ready to serve as a bridge of understanding to the Islamic world. We can best fulfill that role by offering advice that can help prevent misperceptions and misunderstandings between different nations and cultures."

So, 'Islamo-fascism,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire are "hot-button" terms?

OK, which of these labels are “loaded” or “imprecise”?  

The chances are better than average that the President and other government officials are fully aware that there are certain statements that they simply must make. For example, in the last SOTU address, Bush referred to Islam as a "noble faith".

With all of the crybaby tactics that some of these Muslim groups employ, can we all not imagine what would happen if Bush would've termed Islam "a throat slashing death cult", or a "violence driven ideology that stems all the way back to the days of Muhammad"?  

He's never going to say that. However, these so called "hot button terms" are legitimate, and are perpetually demonstrated to all of us.   

American Muslims stand ready to serve as a bridge of understanding to the Islamic world?   

Does this organization, with all of their meddling and posturing, expect to become that bridge?   

If this is the case, why are they so quick to attack Islam's critics?  

Is it not true that the reason for these attacks stems from the fact that they cannot debate the issues involving their beliefs? Isn't this why instead of promoting dialogue, they file lawsuits and call the sponsors of media outlets to complain about commentary by radio and television personalities that is not complimentary of Islam, and throw every one into one giant bin of “bigots”? 

This is what they do. And they do it because they have no other formidable defense. The nerve of this organization and others like it to push the envelope to the West's side of the table, expecting Westerners to better 'understand Islam' is inexcusable, and unacceptable. Western nations who have agreed to Muslim immigration don't need to better understand anything, other than the motives of Islamic fundamentalists who believe that Islam should reign supreme in all lands.  

Other than that, it is the population of Muslim immigrants who need to better understand the culture of their gracious host nations. The arrogance and audacity of Muslim spokespersons, Imams, and Clerics continues to be on display for the West to see.  

next  >