How CAIR works, Part II

Joel Mowbray in the Washington Times has more on “how CAIR cows critics.” He wonders why major media outlets flee from, rather than fight, an “organization replete with ripe targets.” These targets include:

CAIR’s radical roots essentially as an offshoot of a rabidly anti-Semitic organization long viewed as Hamas’ biggest political booster in the United States; its co-founder Omar Ahmad praising suicide bombers who “kill themselves for Islam” in November 1999 (according to a transcript provided by the Investigative Project); or its repeated failure to specifically condemn radical Islam or Hamas and Hezbollah, dismissing requests to do so as a “game.”

Mowbray continues:

CAIR’s key to success in spite of its ugly history is an odd combination of finesse and noise. Realizing that it needs to pass itself off as moderate, CAIR has become the master of making even intelligent people believe that they’ve condemned something when they haven’t. Case in point: its recent fatwa against “extremism” and “terrorism.” CAIR and others came out against two terms that they intentionally didn’t define. Hamas, for example, has long maintained that it is not “terrorism” to kill Israelis because of the Jewish state’s mandatory military conscription. Last year’s CAIR-led “Not in the Name of Islam” campaign was of the same ilk. All of this information is available to media outlets subjected to a CAIR onslaught. None has yet to take this tack, however.

For more on the most recent instance of this terror-linked organization’s success in defeating open inquiry into the connection between Islam and terror, see Diana West’s column, also in the Washington Times.

Responses