There are moments of moral clarity in life when the obscuring fog of confusion and doubt are blown away by a blast of information that brings everything into sharp detail. One of these occurred last night as I read the following from a FrontPage Magazine article about the actions of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (hat tip to Little Green Footballs):

Seven years earlier in November 1999, two Saudi students on an America West flight from Phoenix to Columbus were detained after landing because they had made repeated attempts to enter the cockpit area of the plane during the flight.

In both cases, CAIR rose up to defend the offenders in question and engaged in their now standard grievance theater protest politics. In the most recent case, CAIR has tried to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the incident by backing the “Flying Imams” and supporting their lawsuit against the airlines and passengers for responding to their bizarre behavior. The lawsuit is being handled by a Muslim attorney associated with CAIR.

When it comes to the November 1999 incident, any mention of CAIR’s involvement or defense of the Saudi students has been scrubbed from the organization’s website. It’s no wonder, as the 9/11 Commission Report (page 521, footnote 60) explains that the FBI now considers the incident as a “dry run” for the 9/11 hijackings. And the two men involved? As the 9/11 Commission Report explains, Hamdan al-Shalawi was in Afghanistan in November 2000 training at an Al-Qaeda camp to launch “Khobar Tower”-type attacks against the US in Saudi Arabia, and Mohammad Al-Qadhaieen was arrested in June 2003 as a material witness in the 9/11 attacks. Both men were friends of Al-Qaeda recruiter, Zakaria Mustapha Soubra, who drove them to the airport that day in Qadhaieen’s car. Another friend of Shalawi is Ghassan al-Sharbi, another Al-Qaeda operative that would later be captured in Pakistan with high-level Al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida.

There is a connection between these two incidents, as the leader of the six “Flying Imams” this past November is none other than Omar Shahin, the former imam of the Islamic Center of Tucson, where the two Saudi students from the November 1999 incident attended. Counterterrorism expert Rita Katz told the Washington Post in September 2002 that the mosque served as “basically the first cell of Al-Qaeda in the United States; that is where it all started”. (Len Sherman’s Arizona Monthly November 2004 article, “Al Qaeda among Us”, provides greater detail about the connections between the Saudi pair involved in the November 1999 event and the Al-Qaeda cell that operated in Tucson and Phoenix.)

These links helped me to understand with clarity something I had long suspected: CAIR is an organization of quislings, willingly assisting the Islamic terrorists who labor to kill Americans and overthrow our nation’s rule of law to replace it with Shari’a. CAIR is actively using civil rights lawsuits as a smoke screen for terrorists. Groups like CAIR insist on the current insanity at airports that requires 80-year-old grandmas and a former Vice President to pull off their shoes and receive pat-downs. We mustn’t profile, because that would get airport security sued for racism. But Islam is a religion, not a race.

I refuse to listen to any further grievances voiced by terrorism-tainted CAIR, or by any other group that functions as a support system for those who seek the Islamist overthrow of these United States and the world.

Thanks to the men and women around the world who are hard at work combating the ever-present threat of terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists, a significant plot was uncovered and thwarted.

Much will be said and written about this latest attempt by the terrorist thugs to strike at the West, but there are a few things I’m pondering:

  • Some liberals say that we should be putting all our efforts into catching or killing Osama bin Laden, but I think he’s mostly irrelevant now. If Osama had been captured, would this attempt not have happened? I don’t think so.
  • The British papers are writing about “Asian” men being arrested, but no one appears to be willing to utter the dreaded word “Muslim” for fear of offending. Time to call a spade a spade, folks! President Bush reiterates what should be obvious that the U.S. is “at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.” And just as obviously, CAIR goes bonkers over President Bush identifying the terrorists.
  • Given the success at stopping this attack, I must say a hearty “Thank you!” to the men and women of the CIA, FBI, Senate, House, and other government personel who didn’t leak any of this to the press. And I wish you would collectively shut the hell up on any other investigations or anti-terrorist activities.

UPDATE (8/10/2006 4:58:29 PM): Cox and Forkum do a good job of summing up the results of this bust.

Direct Intercept

Cox and Forkum have a new political cartoon out about the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR.

Cox and Forkum: CAIRful

They created the cartoon based on The Middle East Quarterly article CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha. Here is one paragraph from the article about CAIR:

But there is another side to CAIR that has alarmed many people in positions to know. The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization “which we know has ties to terrorism.” Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.” Steven Pomerantz, the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, notes that “CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.” The family of John P. O’Neill, Sr., the former FBI counterterrorism chief who perished at the World Trade Center, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having “been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism” responsible for the September 11 atrocities. Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson calls it “a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas.”

The genesis of the cartoon comes from the following paragraph from the section labled “Intimidation:”

CAIR attempts to close down public debate about itself and Islam in several ways, starting with a string of lawsuits against public and private individuals and several publications. CAIR’s Rabiah Ahmed has openly acknowledged that lawsuits are increasingly an “instrument” for it to use.

This article addresses eleven objectionable reasons in answer to the statement by CAIR Communications Directory, Ibrahim Hooper, that “It’s always interesting these Muslim bashers can never point to something CAIR has done it in its 10-year history that is objectionable.” Read the whole article.

Recently I wrote about some comments made by the Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad. His recent comments were merely one incident in a long string of Jew-bashing speeches he has made. But honestly, did you hear about Mohamad on the nightly news? While some Jewish organizations spoke out against Mohamad’s comments before the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, the major media basically gave his speech a pass. Where is the outrage?

Well, the media outrage is not focused on Mahathir Mohamad’s speech; instead, it is focused on Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin’s recent comments. Gen. Boykin is the decorated former commander and veteran of the Army’s elite Delta Force and the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. If you have been watching the nightly news for the last week, you will have seen news stories about Gen. Boykin’s comments. But let me quote a few, just so you know what the hubbub is all about.

Speaking of President George Bush: “He’s in the White House because God put him there.” Speaking of the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia: “I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol.” Speaking of radical Islamists: “[They hate America] because we’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian … and the enemy is a guy named Satan.”

Did he make these comments before the nation in some televised forum? No. These comments were made in churches around the nation, but the media decided to make the comments into national news. Judging by the venom issuing from the left, you would think that the General had eaten a spotted owl or done something similarly evil. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) jumped into this fray with his letter to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld:

“I am writing to express my extreme displeasure over Lieutenant General William Boykin’s remarks about the war and the Muslim religion. Lt. Gen. Boykin serves as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and is charged with heading a Pentagon office that focuses on finding Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other targets. This is a critical policymaking position, and it is outrageous that someone who holds such extreme, closed-minded, zealous views would be allowed such a prominent position in our military.”

There has also been some reaction from the Islamic community. Nihad Awad, the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said, “Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, no matter how ill-informed or bigoted, but those beliefs should not be allowed to color important decisions that need to be made in the war on terrorism.” Tell me, Mr. Awad, should we instead listen to you and other members of CAIR? Your organization is suspected of having ties with Hamas and other radical terrorist groups. Former and current members of CAIR have been arrested for such offenses as conspiring to train on American soil for a “violent jihad.” Forgive me if I’m not too keen to follow suggestions issued by CAIR.

While listening to discussions of Gen. Boykin’s comments on the radio, I heard several conservatives suggest that he should not have made religious pronouncements while in uniform. But contrary to the popular and incorrect view of separation of church and state, the General did nothing wrong. When someone joins the military or has a position of leadership in the government, that person does not give up his religion nor his freedom to express it freely.

Gen. Boykin has stated that he respects Islam, but that the terrorists and radicals who fight against America are “not true followers of Islam.” For the pundits on the left, this was not enough. Last week, Boykin apologized by saying, “For those who have been offended by my statements, I offer a sincere apology.” I can understand the political necessity for it, but I think that style of apology was the wrong choice. Here’s the apology I wish I had heard him give:

“Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I do have an apology to make. To the good and faithful people of Islam, I am sorry that radicals have twisted your faith into an excuse to commit murder. I regret that too many good Muslims have stood by while terrorists and lawless thugs have hid behind the words of Mohammed in an attempt to justify their evil deeds. I apologize for the need to kill these people who have taken up arms against our nation and our people. I regret that Islam stood by while evil men conspired to do wickedness in the name of Allah. I am sorry Afghanistan and Iraq needed to be freed from the hands of brutal, diabolical dictators. I am truly saddened at the loss of life caused by these terrorists, and I apologize for the need to hunt these murderers like the dogs they are. I pray to God that we are victorious in ripping out, root and branch, this wickedness from off the face of the earth, and that the terrorists burn in hell forever.”

Now that is the type of apology I would love to hear, but I realize that we as Americans are not unified in the war on terrorism. Too many people have forgotten the image of planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, and too many people do not understand that radical terrorists do not want to discuss their hatred for us. They want to kill us. But this understanding has been lost. That is why there is more reaction to the fervent words of a decorated, twice-wounded soldier who believes in God than the malevolent speech of an outgoing Malaysian prime minister who wants to see Israel destroyed. Please tell me, which of these two is filled with more hatred?