Skip to comments.CAIR's blighted rep [Tancredo Was/Is Right!]
Posted on 07/28/2005 5:45:52 AM PDT by conservativecorner
This time U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo got it right. Meet with representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations? Not on your life, replied truculent Tom. They're compromised, he maintained.
Oh, how they're compromised.
To begin with, several officials or former officials of CAIR have faced criminal charges associating them with terrorism, and a founding board member of the Texas chapter was convicted on such charges just this year.
Moreover, as Salon.com's Jake Tapper reminded Americans in an article shortly after 9/11, CAIR once deplored the prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. In fact, the group repeated "Abdul-Rahman's lawyers' criticisms of the trial as 'far from free and fair' on a 1996 list of 'incidents of anti-Muslim bias and violence,' " Tapper recounts.
In preparing his profile of the group - remember, this is September 2001 - Tapper repeatedly tried to persuade CAIR's communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, to condemn Osama bin Laden by name, without success.
"What about prior acts of terror linked to bin Laden?" Tapper wondered. "Or that bin Laden has urged Muslims to kill Americans? Again, Hooper demurred, saying only that he condemns acts of terror." (CAIR did come around to denouncing bin Laden. What choice did it have with bin Laden himself cheerfully acknowledging his guilt?)
These days, CAIR spends most of its time portraying the United States as a nation slipping into the throes of bigotry, intolerance and anti-Muslim repression. But alas for its credibility even on this score, the group's claims of a surge in hate crimes are tainted by sloppy - if not atrocious - research, according to scholars Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha. They describe CAIR as part of the "Wahhabi lobby."
Can anyone blame Tancredo for refusing to endure a lecture on civility by the likes of this outfit?
CAIR are nothing but a terrorist support group.
another article on CAIR from earlier........
WHEN THE LEFT CAN SHOW ME CONVINCING PROOF THAT MR.TANCREDO-OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER CAN CONTROL HOW ANY REASONABLE MESSAGE IS RECIEVED BY ANY OTHER ESPECIALLY A RADICAL ANTI-AMERICAN TERRORIST SUPPORTING MUSLIM FROM CAIR
THEN I WILL RECONSIDER BUT I WILL NOT APPOLOGIZE.
WHY WAS IT "REDICULOUS"?
We are a moral nation and we don't do such things.
BTW, why are you yelling?
I guess Truman consulted with the devil prior to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then.
Who said they are non-combatants?
The 'peaceful' muslims aren't organizing into brigades and enlisting in the army. They aren't holding rallies. They aren't outing terrorists in their ranks.
They ARE donating money to the war effort, and to keep madras' open.
Meanwhile they are targeting office buildings and subways where they are killing conservatives that are for the war, and liberals who are stridently against the war alike.
I think politicians calling for the vaporization of Mecca, and the support for just such politicians are EXACTLY the moment of pause that every muslim needs at this point.
It's time to put pressure on Muslims to out their criminals. Publishing polls that show a broad support for the vaporization of Mecca isn't a bad start. Most enemies believe we are soft, stupid, and largely to selfish to care.
Not at all.
Your analogy is flawed.
(1) Japan was not our ally - we had formally declared war on them.
(2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.
(3) Japan had control over the outcome - if the Japanese government had granted us the unconditional surrender we requested, Nagasaki would never have happened.
The two situations are radically different.
The only think they have in common is the suggested weapon.
The destruction of Mecca is not a deterrent to terrorists, nor would it make Muslims more likely to become informants to the people who destroyed their holy city.
On the contrary. If intelligence reports are right, and the terrorists have nukes, then I believe that the fact they haven't used them yet is evidence that perhaps they do actually fear what would happen in response to an attack on that scale.
If they had nukes they would have used them already.
The terrorists have demonstrated time and again that they simply do not care what the US does in response to their acts.
They believe God is on their side and that they will prevail, no matter what happens in the meantime.
Exactly why we developed such morals after Nagasaki and Hiroshima Eh?My dad and grandad fought in WW II.
whose yelling? my key pad is as old as I am.
Yes but I dorecall a Muslim murderer who recently was in the news telling a grieving parent he could not feel their pain because they were (in his bloody opine) an infidel.His
attitude is easy to reconcile to that read in their bloody cultish Scriptures.What I know of Islam the teaching is that if you don't submit to Islam you rate lower than a woman lower than a slave(male or female) And as the freakin' parasitical Palastinians consistantly remind us to their twisted logic there is not such thing as
a non-combatant. And To their way of thinking an allie is only some one you need at the moment and plan to slaughter or hold hostage when convienent.Time to dialogue in the language they comprehend otherwise we preaching to an empty