Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Hamas-linked terror org CAIR demands that Fox drop those who speak the truth about the jihad threat

By

nihad awad-corey saylorThe Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, today included in its “American Muslim News Briefs” mailing an item entitled “CAIR Asks Fox News to Drop Islamophobes.” Most of it was made up of the usual smears, lies and distortions that Hamas-linked CAIR pumps out by the gallon. It also contained this:

“Fox News’ continued use of Islamophobes, such Steven Emerson and many others like him, only serves to harm the network’s reputation and to promote hostility toward Islam and ordinary American Muslims,” said CAIR Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia Director Corey Saylor.

He said Fox News continues to utilize the nation’s most notorious Islamophobes and Islamophobia enablers — like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, and Zuhdi Jasser — as regular commentators on issues related to Islam and Muslims.

So Hamas-linked CAIR wants Fox not to feature Emerson, Geller, Hirsi Ali, Gabriel, Jasser or me — just five days after claiming, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre, that it supported the freedom of speech. I wrote at that time: “Hamas-linked CAIR is an inveterate and committed enemy of the freedom of speech, tarring and smearing anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about jihad terror as a ‘racist,’ ‘bigoted’ ‘Islamophobe’ and doing everything it can to make sure that such critics are denied platforms to speak and shunned by all decent people.” This new attempt to strong-arm Fox into dropping virtually every one of us who speaks the truth about the jihad threat just confirms that assessment.

And consider this: Hamas-linked CAIR operatives have the ear of government, law enforcement, and media. Nihad Awad or Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper can pick up the phone and get a story into any major newspaper, spun just the way they want it, on demand. They’re the go-to people for every mainstream media reporter who wants a quote from a “moderate” Muslim, and they’re regularly featured on TV shows on all the major networks. And yet they’re deathly afraid of six people appearing occasionally on one network. Now, why is that? The answer is obvious: Hamas-linked CAIR is dedicated to spreading a thick fog of disinformation about the jihad threat, so as to render Americans ignorant and complacent about that threat. The people they excoriate as “Islamophobes” clear away that fog. Even though they have much more money and much greater access than we will ever have, they know we have one weapon they cannot defeat: the truth. And so they’re desperate to silence us.

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: CAIR, claiming victim status, Featured, free speech, Islamic supremacism, journalistic bias Tagged With: , , , , , , ,


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. What is viewed as bad for Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, CAIR, is actually good for Muslims. They need to hear the truth too.

    • It’s amazing how much influence CAIR has. As you said they were created by the muslim brotherhood. The muslim brotherhood still won’t be classified as a jihadist organization by our government, most likely because of groups like CAIR and other muslim brotherhood operatives inside the U.S government. It is disheartening to see how successful stealth jihad is in the west. The more worrisome part is the U.S and the rest of the western world have no counter nor defense against stealth jihad at this current time, and the enemy knows this.
      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html

      A small part from the link.

      According to founder al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood opposes secular tendencies of Islamic nations and wants a return to the precepts of the Qur’an. The Brotherhood firmly rejects all notions of Western influences in addition to rejecting extreme Sufism as well. Brotherhood members organize events from prayer meetings to sport clubs for socializing.

      The organization’s motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope

      • Don’t miss the Subtlety in this call for Fox to stop using these persons. there is a subtle threat that the same thing as happened to Charlie Hebdo could happen to Fox.

    • All these “Islamophobes’ have had their lives threatened by angry Muslims, which means they are not phobic, but realistic.

  4. By the true definition of the phobia, it is really the Muslims who suffer phobia of all shapes and forms: Jewphobia; Spencerphobia; Pamphobia; Emersonphobia, Freedom of speech phobia….etc.

    CAIR members are chuck full of phobies.

  5. Just remember that these members of Allah’s Army have to “earn” their coin somehow . . .

    THEY KNOW NO ONE BELIEVES THE CRAP DUMPED EVERY TIME THEIR CRANIALLY-MOUNTED ANUSES OPEN.

    And, in the wake of the Paris massacre, whatever they say becomes even more ridiculous.

    Oh, I almost forgot to greet Andre Carson and Keith Ellison — you guys would never admit it, but you follow every word here . . .

  6. Why no link to CAIR’s statement? Not linking to what you complain of is bad policy, indicating that you do no want the reader to verify for himself whether CAIR’s Corey Saylor really said “Islamophobes, such Steven Emerson and many other like him”, without using the word “as”. And does CAIR really have a “Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia”? With a ludicrous department title like that, some mole inside the organization is conducting an anti-CAIR campaign of subtle mockery.

    • Mr. Spencer covered Corey Saylor’s joining CAIR at least a year ago or thereabouts. Pathetic bloviation is his specialty, and the “department” actually is titled like that. As Myron Cohen might have put it in a borsht belt resort night club, “Oy vey: better comedy we couldn’t invent ! ! ! ”

      But you got the correct adjective nailed down —“ludicrous”. The flabbergasting Mr. Saylor is almost certainly not a mole, but rather an earnest taqiyya-spewing clown who desperately hopes his salary is not cut off, as Islam’s obvious essence is revealed more clearly day by day.

    • So, Mark Spahn, possible errors (which, btw, you hardly proved) by those who oppose Islamic supremacist designs aside, do you really care to defend CAIR (pun fully intended) in any way whatsoever? Even many liberal Americans like Bob Beckel have denounced CAIR as a truly loathsome and deceptive organization.

      What CAIR stands for and what the basic liberties outlined in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the American Constitution stand for are completely incompatible. Care (pun again) to dispute this? Or are you just another one-hit nothing who shills for those who shill for Islam’s totalitarianism?

      Your turn if you dare. Your turn, pun again, if you really care.

      • Thank you, Wellington, for your remark, but my basic point — not well expressed — is that it is unwise to criticize an online essay without linking to it. I have written this up in a general way, and here it is, complete with an illustrative link to this very item (“Oh, the recursivity!”):

        To link, or not to link?

        If online polemicist A criticizes an assertion
        of online polemicist B, which is the wiser course
        for A: to link to B’s online essay, or just to
        quote the part of it that A is criticizing?

        We can contemplate how the great thinkers
        of the past would have answered this:
        Aristotle, Aquinas, the rhetoricians of the
        Middle Ages, Nietzsche, Ayn Rand.
        Alternatively, we can try to figure it out ourselves.
        Here is my groping attempt…

        Any link to B’s website will benefit B, because
        it will increase traffic there, providing more
        eyes to meter and hence more ad revenue from
        the ads that appear on B’s website. If B is an
        enemy of A, A would not want to help B by
        generating ad revenue for B.
        But this argument disappears if B does not
        have ads on his website, but rather is self-
        financed or is subsidized by a rich benefactor.

        On the other hand, let’s consider A’s reputation.
        Perhaps A thinks that linking to the evil B will
        taint A in some way by enhancing B’s fame and
        notoriety. But arguing against B does that itself,
        even without a link.
        And more importantly, A’s refusal to link to B
        shows A to be fearful that A’s readers will be unduly
        influenced by B, and that their judgment cannot
        be trusted. An interested reader of A’s can usually
        find B on his own with a little effort, but for what
        legitimate reason would A force his readers to
        jump through this extra hoop?

        On balance, I think it best for A to link to B’s website,
        even if B thereby derives income from clickbait.

        But maybe I have overlooked some argument.
        If anybody finds an online essay that discusses
        the pros and cons of this question, please link
        me to it.
        — Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

        P.S. Here’s an example of A criticizing B without
        linking to B. Was A wise to fail to link?
        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/hamas-linked-terror-org-cair-demands-that-fox-drop-those-who-speak-the-truth-about-the-jihad-threat

        • Dear Blake,
          You write, “instead of whining and nagging, why not post a link?”
          Uh-oh, it is dismaying to learn that I am so inarticulate that you missed my point: a general argument that it is unwise to link to an online piece of writing that you are criticizing. I acknowledged that there might be factors I failed to consider, and welcomed counterarguments. Please, if you disagree, engage the argument and say something that might make me change my mind. I hope to learn from you. I do not see wherein the “whining and nagging” lies, and I did post a link (albeit recursive) to an example of the criticizing-without-linking practice I am complaining of.

        • “I hope to learn from you.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Wow that certainly rings hollow! ..what a sarcastic brat.

        • Dear Philip Jihadski,
          Please let me respond to your note, because it is the most substantive.

          I proposed the question of which alternative is better when criticizing something on a website, [1] to link to that website, or [2] not to link to that website.
          In my opinion, [1] is better, but I sought arguments why [2] might be better.
          Quotations from your note are cited as (((…))).

          (((Your little diatribe is chock full of errors)))
          A list would be nice, so that I can either acknowledge or dispute each error.

          (((linking to an internal JWatch article to prove that “not linking criticism to the source being criticized is bad practice” is a sorry-ass, lame ploy.)))
          No, this linking is not meant to prove anything, but just to give an example of what I am talking about.

          (((It is disingenuous [=insincere] to make the implication that Spencer has “cut corners” as a “polemicist”, as you say, and may be fooling all of us so as not to provide revenue to CAIR.)))
          This is a statement about the state of my mind. I, having better access to it, can assure you that it is incorrect. My understanding is that CAIR’s revenue is not dependent on how many visits its website receives.

          (((I think you’re a CAIR drone trying to muddy the waters.)))
          Sorry, I don’t know what “drone” means in this context (apian-related? aviation-related?).

          (((“But this argument [that linking to a criticized website helps that website by providing it with increased ad revenue] disappears if B does not have ads on his website, but rather is self-financed or is subsidized by a rich benefactor.”
          False, and for the very simple reason that a potential “rich benefactor” is attracted to the site for what it is – not the “potential absence of ads” on said site.)))
          Huh? Linking to a no-ad website *does* provide it with increased ad revenue? I think you misunderstood my argument.

          (((“On the other hand, let’s consider A’s reputation.
          Perhaps A thinks that linking to the evil B will
          taint A in some way by enhancing B’s fame and
          notoriety. But arguing against B does that itself,
          even without a link.”
          So now “arguing against a source” and “linking to it” are both going to “taint Spencer’s reputation”, eh? You’re running in circles and it’s tiresome. Try again.)))
          Re-reading my own words, I see that I said something foolish. I withdraw it. Thank you for your perspicacity in pointing this out.

          (((if your “interested reader of A” is sufficiently interested, he/she may click on CAIR’s crappy website.)))
          But not as easily as if the CAIR criticizer had provided a link within the CAIR-criticizing essay.

          (((On the whole, your post is extremely suspect. Have a nice evening.)))
          What do you suspect? But let’s remember that it is a fallacy — the
          http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/genetic-fallacy/ — to say that because someone is ill-motivated, what he says must be false. You have to judge arguments on their own merits.
          Anyway, you have a nice evening too.

        • Hello again, Philip Jihadsky.
          You are an interesting person to converse with. Before we conclude that further discussion would be bootless, let’s take up a few of the points you raise.

          (((No ads on the site doesn’t preclude a “rich benefactor” contributing funds to the site, ads or no ads.)))
          I agree. But that was not my point. My point (poorly expressed?) what that the argument that “You should not link to a website you disapprove of, lest your linking to it increase its ad revenue” loses its cogency when the website’s income does not depend on ad revenue, but is rather provided by a rich benefactor.

          (((“…to say that because someone is ill-motivated, what he says must be false. You have to judge arguments on their own merits.”
          Bullshit)))
          We agree. That’s why I said “*it is a fallacy* to say that because … false.”

          (((I HAVE judged your pseudo-arguments on their “merits” and found them to be factually, rationally and linguistically bankrupt.)))
          Maybe I am just inattentive, but I am hard put to list the facts and reasons that you find defective. The term “linguistically bankrupt” is intriguing. I wonder what it refers to.
          One good exercise is to state the other party’s argument, without distortion, and without proceeding to give counterarguments.

          (((You’re a CAIR goon and you ain’t fooling me, you dime store intellectual punk.)))
          I *love* name-calling, but please raise your game by coming up with invective that is new and fresh (e.g., “dime store” is anachronistic, but “linguistically bankrupt” is pretty good).

  7. Cair speaketh with a multibillion dollar, Saudi oil funded, multi forked tongue

  8. Given FOX’s leftward slide in recent years, I am certain they will give in to CAIR’s demands,

    Eventually they will go after everyone online who is critical of violent islam, CAIR will call for the silencing and/or arrest of people like Robert Spencer, Pamela Gellar, Mark levin and Michael Savage

  9. I think FOX news will comply with the CAIR’s demands, because our President complies -“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

    We need clear and straight thinkers in the White House not the current bunch of taquie artists.

    • I do not think so.

      Did not the man that owns Fox speak in a very harsh manner, via a tweet against the Islamofacists?

  10. He said Fox News continues to utilize the nation’s most notorious Islamophobes and Islamophobia enablers — like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, and Zuhdi Jasser

    CAIR “forgets” to mention that Zuhdi Jasser is a muslim…

  11. “We don’t like fox news” wahhhh. Fox News is an answer to 20 long-time biased leftist mainstream media outlets and their leftist aggression. The crusades was/were an answer to islamic aggression. I don’t-care what don’t-cair has to say.

  12. i just read that in Sweden , they are not allowed to see all fox news shows..thats is scary…

    • … just like North Korea, saudi arabia, malaysia, China (parts of it) and many islamic holes on Earth.

  13. Does anyone else recall when cair guys used to be the *go to* for FOX talk shows?
    Hearing them tell lies to us through such as O’Reilly was just too nauseating. Much better now that those who speak the truth about islam and its despicable teaching and practices from its disgusting liar of a monster calling himself a prophet are invited on to get the word out.

    Liars are unacceptable in society…and also to the True God. Judgments will come to all liars.
    (Zechariah 14:12 “….and their tongues will rot in their mouths.”)

  14. Wow whenever the truth about islam and company is brought to light–there’s CAIR, trying to put a stop to it; and CAIR adds to the lies by referring to those on the frontline as “notorious islamophobes” …what nonsense! The fact of the matter, is that these are courageous men and women fighting for truth and justice, and evil perps like CAIR make their heroic efforts an uphill battle fraught with threats and danger. Shame on those determined to silence the truth, like CAIR and their ilk.

  15. CAIR’s method’s are not their own invention. They have patterned themselves after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. They have refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom. But like every one who preceded them, they have one iron rule: logic is an enemy and truth is a menace. They, like every tyrant who has tried to bury the truth, will suffocate when the mountain of lies comes crashing down around them.

  16. What part of being linked to terrorists are they trying to hide? It’s almost like they’re confident that they have paid off the right people and they expect to get their monies worth.

    • He won’t, Richie, because he doesn’t have the power to do so, but what disturbs me is that Obama is just ignorant, arrogant and disrespectful enough of America’s sterling record in the area of human rights (a relative one and not an absolute one as those who despise America miss completely), including the right to criticize and mock any religion, that he would, I often fear, per the hate speech nonsense approach which has Orwellianism written all over it, do exactly what your query asked if only he could.

      But he can’t. Though the fact that it appears he’d like to is worrisome indeed. After all, any President of the US who goes before the UN, as Obama did, and manifiests as his chief concern that the future should not belong to those who slander Mohammed, rather than asserting that the future should belong to those who slander any religious figure, is not someone, to put it mildly, I trust as a good keeper of the American Constitution, a document which a four-time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Willliam Gladstone, called “the greatest document ever created by man.” Respecting this magnificent adulation by a most impressive person who was not an American, Obama is utterly clueless. And therein lies, in microcosm, the problem with current occupant of the Oval Office. My God, what a dismal excuse for a President he has been. None worse in all of American history I would contend. And shame on all those who voted for this nothing for the highest office in the land, especially those who voted for him twice.

      • Our President couldn’t bestir himself to support the French as the French united in defense of freedom of speech.

        How, by the way, can anyone slander Mohammad? It’s hard to name a crime he didn’t commit. His followers were proud enough of his actions that they enshrined them in the “holy” Quran. A future in which nobody “slanders” Mohammad is a world in which much of the life and vitality has departed. Very much like the Muslim world.

      • “My God, what a dismal excuse for a President he has been.”

        He does everything badly and the liars in the MSM cover for him. His voters defend him. I worry more about the MSM and the people that voted for him. He will be gone in two years (I hope) but they will not.

  19. CAIR won’t admit it more so than Fox News they fear the NRA, VFW, American Legion, Hunting Clubs all across America. Because these are the men and women if they start some nasty business will be the ones that will go on the March. The sheep are the ones who criticize anyone who owns any type of pistol or long gun. They hope if they disarm all the Americans in this country the terrorist will put their guns down. Just like if they shut up Fox News the radical Islamic media will shut up. I believe that’s what Pres. Obama is trying to do in not blaming radical Islamists and just calling it terrorism. I think he believes if he calms them down they will just go away.

  21. Perhaps we should ask Verizon FIOS to stop carrying Al Jezeera. We do not need a Muslim TV network in this country.

    I am a FOX watcher and proud of it.

    • My complaint about Al Jazeera is similar to my complaint about Fox News: too few news details. This morning, Al Jazeera had a very brief (less than 30 seconds) item about the PEGIDA rally in Dresden of people “chanting anti-Islamic slogans”. But the only slogan I heard on their clip was “Wir sind das Volk!”, which makes no reference to Islam. I had hoped to learn a few “anti-Islamic slogans”.

  22. Without Fox pushing for speakers like RS, the general public would not know nearly as much as they know today. Knowledge is power, and we can’t vote appropriately when we don’t know the truth. Thumbs up to Fox and to sites like JW.

  23. By the conspicuous absence of the White House at the “March” in Paris on Sunday it is obvious that the White House incumbent believes Charlie Hebdo and the Kosher deli incidents were, like Ft. Hood,simply incidents of workplace violence.

  24. The truth is bitter to Muslims,, for this they always play the victim card.. But you have to watch them and their ”Taqiyya” these people cannot be trusted they stab you in the back read their history..

  26. You have to give it CAIR, they have some brass balls. They’ve been shut off by the FBI, named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror trial, CAIR co-founders were key persons in Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) shut down by US Govt for funding terrorist organizations, Hamas. Yet they are immune from criticism, from accountability. Their sordid background, ties to terrorist orgs and Front Group for the Muslim Brotherhood, are immaterial. They continue to launch salvos, playing the victim. CAIR gets their buzz words/talking points out there words like; islamophobe, islamophobia, islamophobic and now add “notorious”. LOL, the Notorious CAIR calling people they dislike “Notorious”. As comical, CAIR a muslim organization, names a fellow devout muslim, Zuhdi Jasser, an islamophobe and CAIR is still taken somewhat serious and not challenged. CAIR’s belief system – Islam is not in America to be equal, but to become DOMINANT and If you’re a practicing muslim you’re ABOVE the laws of the land, goes unchallenged, yet they piss and moan and intolerant of America’s Bill of Rights – namely Freedom of Speech. I don’t recall the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights having an asterisk beside Free Speech.

  27. “He said Fox News continues to utilize the nation’s most notorious Islamophobes and Islamophobia enablers — like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, and Zuhdi Jasser — as regular commentators on issues related to Islam and Muslims.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4160195.htm

    ‘Replace indoctrination’ calls Al-Qaeda hit-listed Ayaan Hirsi Ali after Charlie Hebdo attack

    “After the Charlie Hebdo attack, the ‘infrastructure of indoctrination’ needs to be replaced, argues Dutch writer, activist and former MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali.”

    JANE HUTCHEON: You personally have lived under threat of fatwa. You’re on the latest al-Qaeda hit list, which also shows the editor of Charlie Hebdo crossed out. What is daily life like for you?

    AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Well the first thing that strikes me there is that they show the faces of the men that they want to kill, but they will not depict the images of the women they want to kill. That must tell you something.

    JANE HUTCHEON: Well, explain that for us.

    AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Well, once again, according to the Prophet, the images of women are misleading and what are they afraid of? Why wouldn’t they put my picture there? They’ve put my name there. If in 2015, in 2015, we’re asking ourselves these questions, you can just about imagine how much time we are wasting in understanding what this ideology is about. We know what they want. They have written it. It’s all over the place. They never hide, never, ever hide what their plan is. It’s we who are confused and it’s we who need to get out of that confusion.

  28. CAIR-HAMAS TERRORISTS / NAZIS are FASCISTS / COMMUNISTS and anti-Christian / anti-Israel / anti-Zionism / Very Antiseitism / anti-United States of America Everything!! CAIR-HAMAS are PATHETIC PATHOLOGICAL LIARS PERIOD!!

    “It’s Not Islamophobia when they’re trying to kill you!!”

    “Please PRAY for our Judeo-Christian Nation USA and Israel-Yisrael NOW!!”

    Love and Shalom Everyone, YSIC \o/

    Kristi

  29. I do not understand this. You say there are jihad training camps in various places in USA. If it is known, and it could hardly be kept secret, why are all those gung ho red blooded armed to the teeth Americans citizens not doing anything about it? Like for example shutting them down, not shutting them down why are the police not shutting them down, why is the National guard not shutting them down. Could it be because the famous 2nd amendment protects them? Or maybe they are afraid of being called Islamophobes. Or is the right to bear arms only to protect you against the government? Well soon the govt. will be sharia government if you do not do anything about it.

  30. And let’s not forget the Koran hate monger listing of Christianophobia,jewiohibua,nonbeliever I phobia, gay folksophobia, apostatesophobia, hypocriteophobia, calling for the killing of all of these people —oh well that is pretty much all of us! Then the Koran per the psychopath Moham didn’t like dogs so we have dogophobia, pork fritters iphobia, then art o phobia, music phobia singing ophobia, alcohol o phobia, is there anything that mass nursing bastard Moham actually liked besides his murder sprees – stealing others property after killing them? Ordering his feral youth followers to kill others and steal their property? Raping women and girls? Well that pretty much extinguishes all of normal life.

  31. Hasn’t Fox News learned anything from Charlie Hebdo?

    Also, isn’t standing up to evil the opposite of fearing it? Which would mean that the true Islamophobes are the people who won’t speak out against Islam.

  33. When will CAIR and its vile associates be put “out of business” in the USA? I realize mullah Barak Hussein needs them to advocate and infiltrate our FBI, CIA, etc. — but when will congress bring impeachment and treason charges against our nation’s enemies at CAIR and in the WH’s ioslamo-marxist regime??

Skip to content