CAIR Makeover
New packaging, same old product
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last Friday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced a makeover:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced the launch of a new brand identity and logo. The new identity focuses on openness, professionalism and the pursuit of mutual understanding and justice.
If CAIR were serious about openness, they would open their books and tell us where their money comes from. For example, last June, CAIR announced a $50 million expenditure:
It was also announced that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) would be launching a massive $50 million media campaign involving television, radio and newspapers as part of its five-year program to create a better understanding of Islam and Muslims in the US.
Note that the CAIR website is a dot.com, not a dot.org. [Update: Never mind. They are a 501(c)(4) non-profit.] What is the source for this $50 million? [Update: Near the end of the article: "We are planning to meet Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal for his financial support to our project." Alwaweed is known to be pro-American, which is good. However, because CAIR won't disclose, we can't confirm. What if Alwaweed doesn't come through? Does that mean no campaign, or will CAIR find other Saudi benefactors?] Most Americans don't have problems with Islam or Muslims per se, but they do have problems with the militant strain of Islamism and its practitioners. CAIR does a poor job of differentiating this because, in my opinion, the organization is infused with Salafists and Wahhabis, practitioners of fundamentalist strains of Islam. A substantial amount of their funding is reportedly from Saudis, home to Wahhabist doctrine, although it's difficult to confirm because they won't tell us the sources of their funding.
In the interests of balance, here is the anti-CAIR website.
Speaking of Salafis and Wahhabis, Caryle Murphy of the Washington Post wrote a piece today on "conservation Muslims" and their goal of isolation. Wikipedia has this to say about Salafist doctrine:
Salafi differ from the earlier contemporary Islamic revival movement of Islamism of the 1970s and 1980s, in that (at least many) Salafi reject not only Western ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, but also common Western concepts like economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution and social justice. Muslims should not engage in Western activities like politics, "even by giving them an Islamic slant." [4] Instead, Muslims should stick to Islamic activities, particularly dawah and jihad. Salafi promote sharia rather than an Islamic political program or state.
Salafis seeking isolation or dawa (inviting others to Islam) is just fine; however, not fine are the Salafist proponents of violent jihad, or when Islamists demand that I submit to Islam or die. But that's just me.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Jihad continues. — Comments (45) »
CAIR Makeover 33 Comments (0 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Would jihad by any other name smell as sweet?
PR can only go so far.
--------
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
Well maybe some Zogby Interactive polling told them it'd work...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
According to CAIR, the problem is 9/11. That's why we uneducated Americans have such a negative view of Muslims and the Islamic faith:
Findley commended CAIR’s initiative that he said could go a long way toward improving the image of Islam and Muslims, which has been badly dented in part due to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
Of course, it couldn't be because Islamic terrorists gunned down a British tourist in Jordan, or killed three Afghani police officers, or killed five Phillipinos, or blew up a suicide bomber in a crowd in Afghanistan killing six civilians (including children) and wounding seven others, or brutally murder an off-duty soldier and his kid brother in India.
And that's just what happened in the world YESTERDAY at the hands of Islamic men.
Pick a date, any date in recent history and see how this religion of peace is spreading its message.
How about last Saturday? Islamic terrorists kill eight Afghani police officers, wound another, and abduct 10 others, murder a vegetable vendor in India, kill four innocent people and wound five others in an attack in Algeria, and murder another two people in a separate attack in Algeria.
Let's go farther back. August 30, 2006. Three people, including a 14-year-old boy, are murdered in Pakistan by Islamic terrorists and kill a police officer and a civilian in India. August 28? 6 attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Thailand leave 6 dead at the hands of Islamic terrorism. July 3? 17 people dead and 41 wounded because of militant Islam, including an Indian police officer whose eyes, ears, and penis are cut off before his throat is slit.
I'm just cherry picking dates. You can literally go to any date and see the bloody fingerprint of Islamic teaching on modern history.
But 9/11 is the problem for the public perception of Islam, right? Seems to me the uneducated are the ones who would still have a favorable opinion.
--------
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
We are so desensitized to the phenomenon that the daily onslaught filters into the background noise.
Part of the reason the MSM doesn't report on Islamic violence may be the "dog bites man" syndrome. It happens all the time, so it isn't news. That, and talking about it doesn't fit their current agenda.
--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.
You're not going to try to kiss me are you?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You two need to kiss and make up. I'm serious. (Well, not about the kissing, just about the making up.)
You are both good contributors, but I, for one, am sick of your sniping. Cut it out.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I've heard that many times, but frankly, I've never been really convinced. How do we know enough is enough? Might not enough be just short of enough? What is enough +1? Too much?
Sniping, like branding people genocidal, is de rigeur vis-a-vis the world wide web. (so is nifty phrasing)
To say otherwise is gluttony and greed. If I have enough to eat, I'm not hungry and I should stop eating, lest I be unable to button my britches.
If you guys have been fighting and bickering enough, you have made your point and now it is just noise from the back seat. Those of us riding along in the same car are tired of hearing it.
That's when you know it's enough.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Excuse me but, when I have I called him out? When have I been following him from thread to thread making kissy sounds?
If you're going to jump in, get your facts in order.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Do you want a block of cheese, some sausage and some crackers to go with that fine whine?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
If only you would stop advocating genocide, bee, perhaps we could chat amicably.
Your reply leads me to believe you think I have no beef. That my complaint is overblown. That it's no big deal. After all, what's with a few jackbooted genocidal Hitler jibes between pals. That about right?
I find that position hard to comprehend.
absentee
But if you would ignore him, he would have to stop. You are the one who knows better than to feed trolls. The same rule applies to those who are chasing you around trying to provoke you. There is nothing to be gained by answering him at all. This is not real life, and you aren't allowed to dot his eyes, and at some point the editors will get tired of it and put a stop to it one way or another.
That is the advantage of posting on the site of the Daddy Party. They don't spank due to technological difficulties, but they don't mind blamming someone.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I can post in any thread I like. I just happen to disagree with mr. "you're hitler" an awful lot. Wonder why that is?
I don't know what gets Neil his protected infant status here, but I feel pretty free to oppose him. I presented a view that is precisely the same as dozens of others here, including socrates and paul cella, whether Neil comprehended that or not. Yet I was abusively "chased" through that thread being called a nazi full of genocidal rage. Just because Neil Stevens can't back up his outrageous allegations and therefore wimps out of the debate doesn't make him some type of grownup. It simply means he can't put his money where his mouth is.
I'm not at redstate to endure the same type of mindless, reactionary, emotional, reasonless "j'accuse!" type of witch-hunting debate that is more at home at DKos. In fact, I won't. I think Neil owes me, and everyone else who dares to mention Islam's prominent position in terrorism, a big apology. Of course, I don't expect it. He's in too deep to admit anything. But that doesn't get him an immunity card. He's had dozens of posts in the past two days and I've only replied where it fit. Which I intend to keep doing.
So you two can make all the "I'm telling" threats you want. Until Neil retracts or some unjust action is taken, I can bring it up however, and whenever, I darn well feel like it.
Well then maybe I'm not clear on the rules. Am I not allowed to debate Neil? I haven't followed his every move. I haven't chased him from thread to thread. Any review of the past several days clearly shows I've only engaged on the same topic, and not even in every instance of that same topic, to include not even within Neil's own diary on that very topic.
What has, however, occured, is that instead of responding to my debate points, Neil and company merely complain about my daring to speak to him.
So what do I have to do to keep my 2 year good-standing membership at Redstate? Never speak to Neil again?
how you two resolved the existential angst that exists between you so long as you stop bickering.
I acknowledge your right to debate Neil on that subject but you two stalking each other from thread to thread, or so it seems to the casual observer, to continue this jihad (if I might use the word here) is simply ugly.
May I quote Rodney King here to make my point????
Of if you have to engage in sniping at each other at least restrict it to the topic at hand and not let the topic become you and Neil sniping at each other. Okay?
But what you're doing, ab, is carrying an argument from another thread onto this one, which is a posting rules violation: "No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake." Neil didn't say anything on this thread which can be construed as controversial, yet here you are kickstarting an argument because of bad blood.
If you have a problem with Neil, take it back to where the squabble began rather than stalking him from one thread to the next. You may have been on the side of the angels in your original set-to with him. I don't know and I don't care, but chasing him around the threads demanding apologies doesn't advance your standing among the readers and commenters. Rather, it makes you look petty and vindictive.
It would seem that way if that's what I were doing. However, the point I made here was, in my opinion, entirely material. The question is raised, why don't people talk about this. I believe I have the perfect example of why, presented perhaps too snipingly.
But look, being intimidated into silence for fear of being called a racist, or a fascist, is that what it's about here? I certainly don't think so. You may not think my point was material, but clearly I did and it's at least arguable.
From the moment this feud began, the most frequent point made is that belaboring it somehow doesn't "help" my "case". I didn't realize I had to justify my existence to everyone in the first place. And yet here I am, still debating my right to debate.
I've already agreed to stop arguing with Neil. Is this not enough? I also have to cop to some type of stalking charge? Shall I also accept Neil's eternal judgement while I'm at it? Put yourself in my position. From my perspective I'm being put upon for the crime of defending against the most grievous of charges, and what's more, a leveling of which is precisely the type of political-correctness bludgeon that people here are always talking about: Bullied into silence by the leftie witch-hunters; topics left unexplored for fear of being branded. From my perspective, it happened to me right here at redstate and the only impact of it that I can see is that people don't want me arguing with Neil so often.
Like I said, I've already agreed to stop arguing with Neil. Is this not enough?
But when he starts saying that I'm calling other people names... I get nervous that people will believe him.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
beheadings and a wardrobe update is a must. Their clothing is so... 2nd century.
Maybe placing 'learn about militant Islam' videos on You Tube will get the job done.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Beside a mere clothing update and a pointer to YouTube, there have to be other hints we could give them. You know, as a way to help them assimilate into Western culture.
Some items for CAIR's new PR campaign:
- - Jihad -- the new reality TV show
- - We don't hate women -- we think everyone should own a few
- - CAIR sponsors NASCAR racing team
- - List of national monuments we promise not to blow up
- - Do not call us "fascist", or you will die first
Yes, I think they can do a lot to soften their image.
--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.
anytime somebody who is Muslim does something questionable, you can usually find them on the various news networks giving yet another "yes, but" speech sort of condemning, but then excusing whatever it is that was done.
There is one guy who is a regular spokesperson that I can't even watch or listen to anymore.
The conjunctions that people use are the key to whether you should trust them.
EG:
Clinton: "I support regime change in Iraq, but . . ."
Bush: "I support regime change in Iraq, and so . . ."
Kerry: "We need to do something about Iran, but . . ."
Bush: "We need to do something about Iran, and so . . ."
Everything before the 'but' is rubbish. 'But' means - I am now going to list reasons why we shouldn't do anything about this problem. 'And so' means - I am now going to tell you how I plan to solve the problem.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
--------
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
Just as I write my fatwa condemning CAIR, they decide to counter with a new look.
I'm not optimistic.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.