What really caught my eye in the video was how Ahmed Bedier, the Communications Director of The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), responded to a post on What Would Charles Martel Do? View the original post and comments here.
Here's one comment from Ahmed Bedier:
"I'm sorry that I can not say the same thing for you and your weak alliance. All of you are using some anonymous screen names and are ashamed to publicly share those views. I doubt that anyone of significance will ever actually pay any attention to you.Bedier said he doubts if anyone of significance would ever pay attention to her, or 'all of you', which I guess means the collective anti-jihad blogosphere. Yet here we have Ahmed Bedier doing exactly that - paying enough attention to Pim's blog to post multiple comments. Does that mean that Bedier isn't "[someone] of significance?"
How many of you are quoted in mainstream media?? That's what I thought."
Having read through the original post I didn't find any personal insults from Pim's Ghost. Though in Ahmed Bedier's comments I found infantile ad hominem attacks - "you and your weak alliance." It reminded me of the way Muslims always try to project an image of strength even though all Muslim countries are designated Third World. Or how these same Muslim countries attempt to assert victory, even when they get beaten, such as in every conflict with Israel.
What really sparked my interest is when Bedier said, "How many of you are quoted in mainstream media?? That's what I thought." I recall Little Green Footballs (Feetballs?) being quoted in the MSM a few times, both in regards to the Red Cross ambulance hoax and Reuters' forged photographs. Of course Michelle Malkin is routinely quoted in the MSM; I see her in the MSM more frequently than CAIR.
Then again, maybe we should look at just why people wind up in the MSM. When LGF covered the Reuters' photograph scandal it was productive. It exposed corruption within the MSM. Clearly this was a positive thing. Contrast this to CAIR; every time CAIR is in the MSM it's due to negative publicity. If I started a jihadist organization and disguised it as a human rights group I bet I could get in the MSM too. Likewise, if dozens of the members of my hypothetical group were arrested and convicted for terrorism-related charges, like CAIR members have been, we might get MSM attention as well.
Here is another comment Ahmed Bedier made:
Hate bloggers: understand this, you will never be as credible as CAIR. No one cares about your hateful views. You are very shady folks with questionable backgrounds and motives. Continue to live your fantasy on the Internet.Ironic how a Muslim would use the term 'hate bloggers', or 'hate anything'. Islam is a religion and political system that teaches and endorses hate. Bedier did it with the ad hominems and saying "no one cares" when in fact Bedier himself cared enough to comment.
And what did Bedier mean by "as credible a CAIR?" This assumes that CAIR is credible to begin with. Bedier is living under the mistaken impression that there is a consensus of credibility surrounding his organization. Nothing could be further from the truth. CAIR is a questionable group at best, a terrorist sponsor at worst.
When the average person on the Internet isn't familiar with something they go to Google and Wikipedia. Those are the two most popular sources for basic information on the net. Typing in the search term and looking at the Wikipedia entry or the first page of Google's listings is a good way to check the general consensus. It's not good for in-depth research, but it is good for what's called common knowledge. And what type of information do we find for CAIR?
Ghassan Elashi was a founder of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and was a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Elashi was arrested in December 2002 for conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist. He was convicted on all charges in April 2005.So is CAIR credible? The novice who is completely unfamiliar with CAIR would find out the answer is no. Upon checking Wikipedia they would learn CAIR is linked to terrorist groups and many of it's top figures have been convicted for funding terrorism. More from Wikipedia, CAIR (Criticism):
CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a “front group” for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terrorism-related charges.
This is all in the main entry for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. A quick review of Wikipedia reveals that CAIR promotes hate, anti-Semitism, and terrorism. CAIR lacks so much credibility that Wikipedia even hosts a second article devoted entirely to criticism of CAIR. It's listed here.
CAIR has received recognition and praise from high-ranking official of both the Democrat and Republican parties. On the other hand, the organization has also received great criticism, from a number of both governmental and non-governmental sources, for actions it has taken and people and organizations it has been involved with.
The greatest source of criticism has involved CAIR's ties to terrorism and terrorist groups. As of 2006, at least four CAIR officials have been charged with terrorism-related offenses. CAIR has also been accused by the FBI of raising money for terrorist groups through fraudulent means. Officials of CAIR have been reported advocating for the establishment of an Islamic theocracy to replace the current United States government, and praising controversial groups such as Hamas.
CAIR has also been accused of doctoring photographs and reporting fraudulent statistics about the Muslim population of the United States in support of its own private agenda. Finally, another source of criticism is that CAIR attempts to suppress criticism of Islamic terrorism and intolerance through accusations of racism and anti-Muslim bias.
Among books donated to libraries in CAIR's "library project" were a version of the Quran that was subsequently found to contain numerous anti-Jewish commentaries and was banned by the LA school system and Paul Findley's 'Silent No More', which included complementary views of convicted terrorist Abdulrahman Alamoudi and former neo-Nazi William Baker.
For our next experiment let's Google the term 'CAIR'. The first site listed is the official CAIR website. The second site is Anti-Cair. The third listing is unrelated. The fourth listing is an article critical of CAIR's links to terrorism by Daniel Pipes. The fifth listing is unrelated. The sixth listing is the Wikipedia article listed above. The seventh listing is an article in the Middle East Quarterly critical of CAIR titled, "Islamists Fooling the Establishment." The eighth and ninth listings are unrelated. The tenth listing is the CAIR California website.
So is CAIR credible? Out of the first ten listings on Google for 'CAIR' the only two that were pro-CAIR were official CAIR websites. Three of them were critical of CAIR. The novice who knows nothing about CAIR would discover it to be a controversial organization, not a credible one. Based on the common knowledge provided in a simple Google search, of course.
Ahmed Bedier needs to take heed of what people are saying. A review of key internet sources reveals that there is a general concensus about CAIR, but it isn't a positive one. The consensus says CAIR isn't credible. It says CAIR is a militant Islamist organization trying to wrap itself in the American flag. It asserts CAIR has a long criminal history with links to terrorism.