Of course, as is usually the case, CAIR plays the victim card, a tiresome routine most recently played out in the Flying Imams case.
What was most striking about this conversation, however, was not the absence of their denials, but their immediate claims of victimization -- not of Dwight Schultz and Howling Mad Radio, but of their organization, a technique they have employed ad nauseum in a myriad of situations. The response to Mr. Lamphere seemed almost scripted; the CAIR representative was quick to decry the persecution of the Muslims they represent, suggesting that the offending parties, from Ali to the cyber-attacker, were non-Muslims attempting to sully their organization despite the quality of evidence presented.
The weight of evidence in this matter indicates that CAIR assets were used in an inappropriate manner with the objective to silence or otherwise disrupt legitimate and intellectual discourse about Islamic terrorism and related topics. Many individuals and organizations, especially those having a strong Internet presence and significant following, have complained about CAIR's history of attempts to shut down any public debate about its organization and Islam?s role in terrorism. Intimidation from CAIR against those who question the organization?s role in America has been well documented by others and has taken on many forms, from the threat of lawsuits, financial pressure, to vociferous public denunciation of its critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.