The CAIR-Terror Connection

[Brad'sDad]

Excerpts from FrontPageMagazine.com | April 29, 2004

“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

This was the line from President George W. Bush’s September 20, 2001 Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People that set the ‘Bush Doctrine’ in motion. In the speech, this line made reference to foreign nations that harbored and/or supported terrorists. However, within the ‘war on terrorism,’ the line actually had a much broader meaning -- specifically towards those individuals and groups that supported the enemy right from our own shores.

According to Justice Department U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113B, Section 2339A:

“Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out [terrorist acts], or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment or an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

One group in particular, CAIR or the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an entity masquerading as a ‘civil rights’ organization, has called into question its own support for nefarious causes. The following will prove that, in late 2001, CAIR appeared to be in violation of United States law, as in regards to the providing of material support to terrorists.

In September of 2001, just following the worst terrorist attack ever suffered in modern history, CAIR placed on its website, under a picture of the World Trade Center in flames, a plea for donations. It read, “Donate to the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund.”

Yet, when people clicked on the link, it did not take them to any NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund. No, it took them straight to the website of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an Islamic ‘charity’ that was soon to be shut down by the United States for “raising millions of dollars annually for HAMAS.”

The fact that CAIR was toying with the emotions of persons wanting to give money to a fund that CAIR disguised as one related to the 9/11 attacks is despicable…The fact that CAIR was asking people to donate to an organization that was raising millions for a terrorist organization that regularly sends suicide squads to murder innocent people is reprehensible. Under the right circumstances, it would also be criminal...but that is a determination for the appropriate authorities to make, after their (much delayed, and much needed) investigation commences.

Later that month, on September 25, 2001, CAIR changed the link to explicitly ask persons to “Donate through the Holy Land Foundation.” And in addition, CAIR added a new link to its site, soliciting persons to “Donate through the Global Relief Foundation.”


The Global Relief Foundation, like the Holy Land Foundation, was soon to be shut down by the U.S. government on terrorism related charges. As stated by the Treasury Department, “The Global Relief Foundation has connections to, has provided support for, and has provided assistance to Usama Bin Ladin, the al-Qaeda Network, and other known terrorist groups.”

At the time of the Holy Land Foundation’s closure, on December 4, 2001, CAIR immediately took the Holy Land Foundation link off of its site. And less than a week after the Global Relief Foundation’s December 14, 2001 closure, CAIR removed that group’s link as well.


The question we now have to ask is, “Did CAIR know that these organizations existed as terrorist related entities, prior to CAIR removing the links?” Or, considering CAIR’s connection to both offending organizations, the more appropriate question would be, “How did they not know?”

__________________________

Rabih Haddad – CAIR Fundraiser

Rabih Haddad was a co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation. Before being deported by the United States to Lebanon in July of 2003, Haddad had held various positions with Global Relief, including that of Executive Director and Public Relations Director.

And like Ghassan Elashi, Haddad was also active in CAIR. According to the Quaker organization, the group that runs the large charitable foundation, the American Friends Service Committee, Haddad had served as a fundraiser for CAIR.

Just as in the previous case, this shows that the Global Relief Foundation was not only a link on the CAIR website, but that CAIR was directly involved in the organization.

Considering this evidence, it would be somewhat difficult for CAIR to deny any knowledge of the two pseudo-charities’ nefarious involvements -- involvements that directly led to the murders of innocents abroad. This includes the December 2, 2001 suicide bombing of a bus in Haifa, Israel, murdering 15 and wounding 40 others… and the suicide bombing in an entertainment area in Jerusalem, which took the lives of 11 young people, just a day earlier.


Both incidents occurred, while CAIR was soliciting funds for the terrorist charities on its site. If CAIR was indeed involved, under the Justice Department code stated earlier, it could result in life imprisonment for all implicated.


But while it’s hard for CAIR to run away from its connections to the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation, because of the connections, it’s easy to understand why CAIR tried vigorously to defend and protect the groups.

CAIR called the closure of the Holy Land Foundation “unjust” and “disturbing.” And CAIR described the closure of the Global Relief Foundation as the racial profiling of an organization that “had established a track record of effective relief work.”


If CAIR wasn’t involved in the conspiracy, why would it go out of its way to defend terror related organizations? Any group that claims to value human rights would run as far away from these organizations as possible. But CAIR did not.

The reason seems clear. Now, it’s time for the United States government to investigate this matter.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13175

 

[BobbieDog]

The logics and analyses in this article, and their harnessing to annihilation intending rhetoric: would have won praise from the Nazis of the last century.

Those logics and analyses are predicated on an ideology which is largely undeclared: and which in being undeclared, seeks to palm of its assumptions and conclusions, not as ideological elements; but as things of the shared world itself.

Could money have been conduited through Islamic charities, such that such money somehow financed some part of some terrorist action? Of course. Let that be established in the beginning, and as something not at issue.

What is at issue, is what is the intention of the project of ranting rhetoric, of which this contention of such conduiting in this article, is part.

Charities raise vast sums of money. Especially where ethnic and faith loyalties are concerned. Especially where a people living in deep privation are concerned. What might sometimes be done by the state, is in such circumstances, often done through charities.

A vast part of the resources funding the whole Palestinian reality, will come through charities. Where terrorism occurs from out of Palestine: then it is inevitable that some money that begins in charitable collection, will end up involved in terrorist action.

When this happens, it is not scandalous: it may be cause for concern, and need correction; but it is something which, in itself, is unremarkable, and to be anticipated.

That there might be shared personnel in charities and some terrorism, is not unremarkable: in a small society, the committed cohort can be small; love for your people can lead to raising money to ameliorate their suffering, and at another moment it might see you taking up arms for this same people. Such personnel sharing is not scandalous, it is to be anticipated.

Such recognition need not take emphasis away from opposition to terrorism. But it may argue against the full frontal assault on charities, that the US is currently engaged in: and it certainly leads to deep suspicions concerning the visceral rhetoric of articles such as this.

If this forensic scrutiny of Islamic charities, were to matched by similar forensic scrutiny of every US dollar going into Israel: then we could all be more supportive of attempts to makes Muslim charities ever more responsible for the use to which raised cash is put.

 

[Paula]

The fact that CAIR was toying with the emotions of persons wanting to give money to a fund that CAIR disguised as one related to the 9/11 attacks is despicable…The fact that CAIR was asking people to donate to an organization that was raising millions for a terrorist organization that regularly sends suicide squads to murder innocent people is reprehensible. Under the right circumstances, it would also be criminal...but that is a determination for the appropriate authorities to make, after their (much delayed, and much needed) investigation commences.

Considering this evidence, it would be somewhat difficult for CAIR to deny any knowledge of the two pseudo-charities’ nefarious involvements -- involvements that directly led to the murders of innocents abroad. This includes the December 2, 2001 suicide bombing of a bus in Haifa, Israel, murdering 15 and wounding 40 others… and the suicide bombing in an entertainment area in Jerusalem, which took the lives of 11 young people, just a day earlier.

Both incidents occurred, while CAIR was soliciting funds for the terrorist charities on its site. If CAIR was indeed involved, under the Justice Department code stated earlier, it could result in life imprisonment for all implicated.

The reason seems clear. Now, it’s time for the United States government to investigate this matter.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13175http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13175http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13175

Both the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department have long warned of CAIR's connections with extremist terror groups, including the Al Qaeda network.

Since 9/11, several arrests and convictions have been made of imminent CAIR members and officials having ties with radical extremists and phony charities, among which feature:


Bassem Khafagi (CAIR's Community Affairs Director, founder of IANA which disseminated radical Islamic theology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism."); Ghassan Elashi (Founding Board Member of CAIR, former Chairman of the Holy Land Foundation), Randall Royer (CAIR's communications director and civil rights coordinator), Rabih Haddad (fund raiser for CAIR via the Global Relief Foundation), etc.


This article is a must-read:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040723-082950-9083r.htm

 

[BobbieDog]

We understand that no organization can be responsible for the independent actions of its officials or affiliated members. To its credit, CAIR has denounced terrorist acts, most recently the beheadings of two Americans in Iraq. At the same time, the examples cited above reveal some unsettling connections between certain CAIR officials and extremist groups that demand at a minimum an internal investigation. The federal government has not yet turned its "draconian" reach on CAIR directly, and at this point we are not prepared to ask it to do so. For now, it would be better if CAIR itself began a conscientious and deliberate effort to purge members it believes have terrorist ties and to thoroughly condemn those already convicted.

So you trudge through this article, that might well be referring to matters of real concern: but that is difficult to judge, as the writing style is the polemical scattergun, of half formed suggestion, and innuendo, and contextless data.
Then you read through the robust CAIR rebuttal.
Then right at the end of all these scandalous revelations: well actually the government hasn't seen fit to act; and we the investigating journalists, well we wouldn't ask them to either; but well, CAIR ought to be careful, as it does seem to be employing Muslims.
What was this article all about? It wouldn't have been trying to stir up prejudice against a minority? No, surely not, not in America.

And just to make it clear. If their are laws against contributing to violence: then by all means apply them; with evidence, and due process, and all that constitutional jazz.
There are ways of doing that: tried and tested; and they ought to be held to.

 

[Paula]

So you trudge through this article, that might well be referring to matters of real concern: but that is difficult to judge, as the writing style is the polemical scattergun, of half formed suggestion, and innuendo, and contextless data.

The writing style of the OP/Ed was very clear to me. The editorial made reference to specific news reports that have been public knowledge for some time. As such, there was no "innuendo and contextless data(?)" as you erroneously suggest.

Then you read through the robust CAIR rebuttal.

Although there was no CAIR rebuttal, I'd say the editor made a great effort to present both sides of the story in a fair and accurate manner.

Then right at the end of all these scandalous revelations: well actually the government hasn't seen fit to act; and we the investigating journalists, well we wouldn't ask them to either; but well, CAIR ought to be careful, as it does seem to be employing Muslims.

Again, you're putting in words and ideas of your own, where there weren't any intended by the writer. The ideal situation would be for the Muslim-American community to taking a proactive stance in purging itself of illegal activity of its own accord. This is far preferable to government intervention and would certainly foster an atmosphere of trust.

What was this article all about? It wouldn't have been trying to stir up prejudice against a minority? No, surely not, not in America.

Why are you so strenuously opposed to disclosure of factual information by the media? Doesn't the public have a right to know? Don't we have freedom of the press? How can one equate knowledge with prejudice?

And just to make it clear. If their are laws against contributing to violence: then by all means apply them; with evidence, and due process, and all that constitutional jazz.

The CAIR officials in question were charged, tried and were either convicted or plead to a lesser charge. This is what we call "due process" in America. I also suggest you read the editorial in its entirety, as you seem to have omitted this part:

"Such statements are part of CAIR's dishonest campaign to create the sense of a widespread inquisition against Muslims and Arabs in America that simply doesn't exist."

 

[BobbieDog]

If you were familiar with legal process Paula, you would be sensitively aware: both of how testimony and appearance are builtup; and conversely how they can be dissassembled.
There is very little data in what you link to. A blur of seeming fact yes, what I have called the scattergun approach. Data would be something like what could be presented and wieghed as evidence, in a court of law. I term what the articles present as contextless: because of the myriad frames of reference brought into play; frames which are not joined up, which are not constant. Its like hurling in some chemistry, some biology, some physics, some ecenomics, some politics, some linguistics: where what is so hurled in has some nominal commonality; but not so as to allow any real contiquity between the facts of the various disciplines. You then cannot make anyhting of what is presented: its a field mess tin, with the stew and the custard and the coffee all mixed up, and congealed, and maybe a bit mouldy; hell the bits and bobs don't even occur in one time frame, they don't all have the same sell by window.
Any lawyer, or scientist, or forensic worker, or journalist would tell you the same: this article is a stomach full of half digested grazings from all over the shop; and the cow is about to be sick.

Most of the rest of what you say doesn't merit response.

You'll have to point me back to the context of your quote, who said it, for it to mean anyhting: I read the articles, I remember reading something like that, but not so as to allow me to locate it; it simply sounds like polemic from someone who is antagonistic towrds CAIR, a partisan statement.
I would assume the existence of such an inquisition. Although I enjoy interchange with you for its own sake: there is also this serious side, that I do view what you post, as qualifying you as a foot soldier of such an inquisition.

 

[Paula]

If you were familiar with legal process Paula, you would be sensitively aware: both of how testimony and appearance are builtup; and conversely how they can be dissassembled.
There is very little data in what you link to.

Quite frankly, I don't think you understood much (if anything at all) that's been posted on this topic. However, if you desire additional factual information on the individuals involved, feel free to Google the names mentioned in the editorial I posted.

 

[BobbieDog]

Quite frankly, I don't think you understood much (if anything at all) that's been posted on this topic.

That looks suspiciously like a white flag of intellectual surrender Paula.

Leaving the field where the opponent remains coherently organised, is no different from losing the day of debate.



I don't have any objection to CAIR being subject to the full force of scrutiny and law. I would welcome that: and see the world as a safer place for it.

Equally I would wish all other agencies in the same field, to be subject to the same scrutiny and law.



Beyond that, I do see and fear an Islamaphobia which has already become genocidal: such that, in debate, and even when coming into interchange with fine people like yourself; there are certain safeguarding perspectives I find I must press.

Perhaps if we in Europe, and elsewhere, had been more alert to such dangers in the early 20C, then millions murdered by the Nazis would have been spared that awful fate.

 

[Brad'sDad]

Both the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department have long warned of CAIR's connections with extremist terror groups, including the Al Qaeda network.

Since 9/11, several arrests and convictions have been made of imminent CAIR members and officials having ties with radical extremists and phony charities, among which feature:


Bassem Khafagi (CAIR's Community Affairs Director, founder of IANA which disseminated radical Islamic theology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism."); Ghassan Elashi (Founding Board Member of CAIR, former Chairman of the Holy Land Foundation), Randall Royer (CAIR's communications director and civil rights coordinator), Rabih Haddad (fund raiser for CAIR via the Global Relief Foundation), etc.


This article is a must-read:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040723-082950-9083r.htm

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Paula again."

Very interesting, as usual, Miz Paula. Washington Times is a great source.

Undoubtedly, there are some real questionable circumstances within CAIR itself. If they expect to have any credibility at all, they should take care of their intramural problems with their officials and leadership first.

 

[Paula]

That looks suspiciously like a white flag of intellectual surrender Paula. Leaving the field where the opponent remains coherently organised, is no different from losing the day of debate.

Hardly. You admit to not having understood the OP/Ed I posted, yet you draw some ludicrous conclusions and launch personal attacks. You need to focus on the particular issues involved in the thread instead of running in forty different directions while making blanket generalizations. I would hardly call that "coherently organized."

Oftentimes, you have also been exceptionally evasive in your refusal to respond to specific questions posed on this and other threads, which of course, only leads one to wonder.

I don't have any objection to CAIR being subject to the full force of scrutiny and law. I would welcome that: and see the world as a safer place for it.

I'm glad to hear it.

Equally I would wish all other agencies in the same field, to be subject to the same scrutiny and law.

Exactly what do you mean by "agencies in the same field"?

Beyond that, I do see and fear an Islamaphobia which has already become genocidal: such that, in debate, and even when coming into interchange with fine people like yourself; there are certain safeguarding perspectives I find I must press.

Perhaps if we in Europe, and elsewhere, had been more alert to such dangers in the early 20C, then millions murdered by the Nazis would have been spared that awful fate.

This is quite an overreaction, not to mention a misuse (and overuse) of the term "Nazi," which has had horrific consequences for millions of Jewish people, among others. The Jews did not declare a Holy War on anyone as the Islamics did, so your analogy doesn't hold water. As such, the word "Nazi" or "Nazism" should not be used frivolously or taken out of context. Moreover, beating the drum repeatedly with anti-American epithets such as this has no constructive outcome, and only serves to further polarize people.

Let's not forget that on 9/11, a declaration of war was made against the U.S. to which a counterattack was launched by the allied coalition. But of course, the jihadis involved should have thought of the repercussions to their brethren before they undertook this dastardly action. Since that date, similar tragic events have occurred globally. But now that the "Sleeping Giant" has awakened, appeasement of terrorists is simply not an option as you seem to suggest.

 

[Brad'sDad]

If you were familiar with legal process Paula, you would be sensitively aware: both of how testimony and appearance are builtup; and conversely how they can be dissassembled.
There is very little data in what you link to.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13175

The link I gave in my first post contains lots of data and cross-links on several prominent CAIR officials who were also fundraisers. Some are doing time for their crimes and one was deported. I didn't copy the whole article over because it was too long, but if you go back to the link there's lots of useful data. There is no shortage of info on this subject--it's common knowledge in America, but perhaps not in Europe.

 

[BobbieDog]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13175

The link I gave in my first post contains lots of data and cross-links on several prominent CAIR officials who were also fundraisers. Some are doing time for their crimes and one was deported. I didn't copy the whole article over because it was too long, but if you go back to the link there's lots of useful data. There is no shortage of info on this subject--it's common knowledge in America, but perhaps not in Europe.

The article spans time both before and after 9/11: and it fudges the issue that many have political opposition, which sometimes shades into countervailing American, or American supported military actions; I support many of the political perspectives of those who commit terrorist actions, even although I do not condone terrorism.

Opposing the USA across the full available spectrum is legitimate: and the recourse to law to differentially legitimate US action; and make illegitimate opposition to America and its actions: is at best hypocritical, and at worst fascist.

This is not just a point of political rhetoric: but a crucial matter of practical and scholastic import; double standards are built into the very architecture of these measures and perspective reported in this article: and all of that can simply not be brushed under the carpet.

If I had access to all the biographical data of the American military in Iraq, and all the political body who sent them there: I could very quickly whip up myriad damning profiles of the American presence in Iraq; simply by collating macro profiles from the mass of micro profiles.



The time frame matters are crucial. What obtained before and after 9/11 come from distinct universes of human meaning: current American policy proceeds on that basis; where the article, in seeking to make one profile from data coming from either side of the time divide, is simply misleading.

Then there is the matter of proaction. What we should be seeking is that current Islamic institutions meet certain standards. The sustained polemic of the article does not contribute to that, rather the reverse: the article does not really seek the betterment of CAIR; but the political hamstringing of CAIR.



There are just two many elements of instability in the assumptions, perspective and conclusions of the article, to make it readily useful: its methodology appears suspect; it offers insufficient, to justify the arduous work of winnowing its wheat from its chaff.



Just an article best filed in the dustbin.

 

[Brad'sDad]

Just an article best filed in the dustbin.

BobbieDog, your response is childish. When you asked for additional info, I pointed the way. It's no secret that you basically have nothing of value to say. Yet you answer just about every post on the forum with doubletalk, and all that amounts to is spamming. Just pick whatever threads you're more familiar with and concentrate on those.

 

[BobbieDog]

BrDd, what do you mean by double talk?

 

[Brad'sDad]

Main Entry: dou·ble-talk
Pronunciation: -"tok
Function: noun
1 : language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense
2 : inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language
- dou·ble-talk intransitive verb
- dou·ble-talk·er noun

Main Entry: dou·ble·speak
Pronunciation: 'd&-b&l-"spEk
Function: noun
: language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth; also : [size=-1]GOBBLEDYGOOK[/size]

 

[BobbieDog]

Main Entry: dou·ble-talk
Pronunciation: -"tok
Function: noun
1 : language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense
2 : inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language
- dou·ble-talk intransitive verb
- dou·ble-talk·er noun

Main Entry: dou·ble·speak
Pronunciation: 'd&-b&l-"spEk
Function: noun
: language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth; also : [size=-1]GOBBLEDYGOOK[/size]

So you are saying that I am being deliberately ambiguous in my language usage, in order to deliberately decieve through concealment or misrepresentation of truth?
Would you also be arguing that, beyond any question of unjustified slight, that you are not engaging in an attack on my person?
I know that you are wrong in what you say: I simply need to clarify whether you knowingly disregard the protocols which generally regulate exchanges on CF.

 

[Paula]

BobbieDog, your response is childish. When you asked for additional info, I pointed the way. It's no secret that you basically have nothing of value to say. Yet you answer just about every post on the forum with doubletalk, and all that amounts to is spamming. Just pick whatever threads you're more familiar with and concentrate on those.

You are correct, Brad'sDad. The double-talk has begun to take on a spam-like nature, both incessant and predictable. Kind of reminds me of those annoying pop-up ads.

So you are saying that I am being deliberately ambiguous in my language usage, in order to deliberately decieve through concealment or misrepresentation of truth? Would you also be arguing that, beyond any question of unjustified slight, that you are not engaging in an attack on my person?
I know that you are wrong in what you say: I simply need to clarify whether you knowingly disregard the protocols which generally regulate exchanges on CF.

Nice try, but no cigar. How many times have you yourself engaged in ad hominem attacks on the two of us on this thread, ostensibly as a diversionary tactic attributable to your lack of knowledge of the subject matter? This is nothing more than childish game-playing on your part, BobbieDog, so let it go.