Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Mar 12, 2007.
Notice there is no denial?
1. The meeting room arrangements for CAIR were made by Rep. Bill Pascrell, Democrat from New Jersey. They've been provided use of the room used by the Ways & Means Committee. (Note, also under Democrat authority, but not Nancy Pelosi's - just ask her!)
2. CAIR has 32 locations worldwide, with headquarters in WA D.C.
3. CAIR received significant funding from Hamas via their Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development prior to it being shut down. Additionally, immediately following 9/11, CAIR had a link on their site labeled "NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund" - clicking the link led to a site for donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.
4. At least four former CAIR officials have been charged with terrorist activity.
5. CAIR was actively involved in criticism of the prosecution of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (the man named as the ringleader of the 1993 WTC terrorist bombing).
Dems are aiding the enemy
Good. I hope AIPAC is next.
Hell, the Muslims and libs are upset over the show '24'
These people go thriugh life looking for things to be offended over!
Radicals on the Hill
March 15, 2007
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) doesn't have much tolerance for a robust media. Legitimate reporters and editors in America disdain propaganda as news, and politicians, advocates, churchmen, celebrities and just about everybody else of whatever stripe understands that. This is a lesson our Muslim brothers will learn sooner or later as they become accustomed to life in America.
CAIR summoned reporters to its Capitol Hill headquarters to announce that a group of imams are filing suit against US Airways and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, claiming that the "flying imams" were barred from a flight last November "on the basis of their perceived race, religion, color, ethnicity, alienate, ancestry and national origin." CAIR employed Martin Luther King's language from the civil-rights struggle to suggest that the imams were victims of stereotyping and mistreatment. "When anyone's rights are diminished, the rights of all Americans are threatened," said CAIR Director Nihad Awad. Fair enough as rhetoric, we suppose, though Dr. King never tried to use the rituals of his faith to intimidate anyone.
CAIR and the "flying imams" are unhappy with this newspaper's coverage of the incident, and especially with Audrey Hudson, who first reported that witnesses and law-enforcement officials contradicted the imams' assertions that they were merely praying before their flight. Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse, repeatedly shouting "Allah," when passengers were called for their flight to Phoenix.
Passengers and flight attendants said the imams switched from their assigned seats to seat themselves in a pattern reminiscent of the September 11 attacks. One air marshal called the seating arrangement "alarming" because the imams "now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." Witnesses and law-enforcement officials said the imams exhibited behavior associated with a "security probe" -- when terrorists take certain preliminary steps to see how law-enforcement and security officials react.
Several days after Miss Hudson's dispatch appeared in this newspaper in December, Mr. Awad scolded The Washington Times in an interview with the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper, for "falling below journalistic standards and decency." He was unhappy not for misstatements of fact, but particularly because Miss Hudson quoted Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix physician and a Muslim critic of CAIR. The organization is no doubt unhappy as well with S.A. Miller's story in The Times on Monday, noting that Rep. Bill Pascrell, New Jersey Democrat, had reserved a room in the Capitol for a CAIR event, though the organization has been associated with fairly suspicious characters, including several who have been sent to prison for their involvement with jihadist terror networks. CAIR doesn't like such coverage, but reporting the news is what newspapers do. The way to stop unfavorable coverage is to straighten up and fly right. Shooting the messenger, as any successful American advocacy group could tell them, never works.
According to the SPLC, the Washington Times is linked to white supremacy so we shouldn't read it.
There's no denial of what?
or perhaps it does not slant the news toward the left and delivers what news is supposed to - the who, what, where, when, and why -
Why should they even attempt to? They are sick of being accused of such. Didn't you read the article?
Separate names with a comma.