Never mind that this Wikipedia article is a WHITEWASH for this obvious cover-organization.
There are TWO basic things in the article that can't be avoided:
(1) The facts that they are forced to admit, whatever spin is put on them.
a) The organization CAIR receives substantial foreign funding from HAMAS
and other Arab groups and governments. The amount and the percentage that they receive
is not disclosed, which any real charity would be obliged to do on an annual basis.
b) At least five associates and leaders involved in the group have been convicted
as terrorists. This is undeniable factual history, and the best that the article can do
is try to imply that one of the terrorists was somehow falsely characterized.
The whole Wiki section:
"Responses to Criticisms" is based on a
New York Times
propaganda piece over 8 years out of date (March 2007):
Responses to criticisms
In 2004 an FBI agent said "false claims originate from one or two biased sources," and that a senior FBI official said CAIR would just have to live with them. In early 2007, the New York Times wrote that "more than one [U.S. government official] described the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association."[92] At that time (prior to the Holy Land trial), the Times called efforts to link the organization to Hamas and Hezbollah "unsuccessful," citing a retired FBI official who was active through 2005 and who suggested that while "of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR", you don't get "cold hard facts"[92][context needed] although the article goes on to cite the suspicious background of some of CAIR's donors as a source of contention within members of the organization itself.[92] The Times also noted that even though a handful of its former members had faced prosecution, no criminal charges had at the time ever been linked to CAIR.[92]
|
The
'FBI agent source' turns out to be a single
retired agent who worked in 2005,
already out of the loop for 3 years when the article was first published, and who made
no claims about working on the CAIR case at all, or even in the field of terrorism.
There is no actual official or current FBI source, even from 2007.
The Times article itself doesn't support the claim that CAIR is not a terrorist front.
Although the Times article may have given the opinion that the linking to Hamas was
"unsuccessful" back in 2007, this merely the opinion of the reporter who wrote the slanted article.
The reason the 4 members of CAIR who were convicted of terrorism are in 2007
listed as
"former members" is obvious: CAIR had to distance itself from these
key members who were actually arrested and convicted.
The article gives the impression that maybe somehow these five terrorists broke off
on their own and began terrorist operations in the USA. This is nonsense.
They became "former" members when it was necessary to disavow connections.
The New York Times article itself is so slanted as to be laughable:
Broadly summarized, critics accuse CAIR of pursuing an extreme Islamist political agenda and say at least five figures with ties to the group or its leadership have either been convicted or deported for links to terrorist groups. They include Mousa Abu Marzook, a Hamas leader deported in 1997 after the United States failed to produce any evidence directly linking him to any attacks.
|
Its not just that
"critics say" that five terrorists have been linked to the group.
The article itself admits they were 'former' members!
The article goes on to claim that the US government failed to produce any evidence,
yet plainly a trial was held and
an immigration hearing was conducted and
the result was deportation! How is that "no evidence" ????
The article stops short of calling the deportation a 'kangaroo court',
but makes ludicrous claims. Why stop short? Because if we were given access
to the records of the deportation there would obviously BE evidence.
(2) The perverse and distorted propaganda sources they rely on and mislead with.
See above.
The article uses out-of-date information where it suits them,
and ignores all the developments including terrorist attacks on US soil
since 2007.
