Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Free Qur'an?[edit]

Are these the people who sent me for free, a large hardbound copy of the Qur'an? This would have been maybe ten years ago. It has the full Arabic text, also transliterated, and some rather eccentric appendices including one about jinn. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think they had a program like that (we have a copy somewhere too), but IIRC, they translated some idioms differently than the traditional version. For example, there's a word that usually translates as "slay" (as in "slay the infidels"), but in their version uses "resist". CorruptUser (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Is that because "resist" is more PC or because they studied the Arabic text and thought it was a better translation? (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you disagree with "is metaphor", whatever you want "is literal". Better or worse translation? Doesn't matter, it's whatever the people reading it say it says. CorruptUser (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Update. Yeah, I don't think they changed it, though the violent parts are still just as violent (unlike the Bible which has nothing morally objectionable in it, nooooope, you definitely won't find instructions on the proper way to commit war rape in there...) CorruptUser (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop reverting me unless....[edit]

You can offer good faith and substantive reasons why: 1. There is some solid evidence about this claim that CAIR opened before True Lies did, and just what is supposed to be so nefarious about this even if it true; 2. Why the accurate information about the litigation involving CAIR -- which I have read in the primary court papers -- should not be published, and; 3. Why it is not significant that CAIR has been endorsed by a Pulitzer-Prize winning civil libertarian journalist, Glenn Greenwald, who frequently speaks at their events?---Mona- (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

1) Nobody cares about Glenn Greenwald except you, because you work there or whatever. Please stop shamelessly promoting yourself. His endorsement of CAIR means about as much as a hobo's rant about Obama.
2) CAIRWikipedia opened in June, True Lies opened in July. CorruptUser (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
An endorsement by Mr Greenwald is irrelevant. Please stop shilling for Greenwald. --Castaigne (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Glenn Greeneald is a CIVIL LIBERTARIAN who won a Pulitzer for CIVIL LIBERTARIAN reporting in the "public service." And a Polk Award. He regularly speaks out for CAIR and addresses their events as keynoter and such. He's an important CIVIL LIBERTIES figure. DUH.---Mona- (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
FFS, wingnuts have accused Greenwald of treason for his CAIR connection. It's a big deal to people who love or hate both him or CAIR.---Mona- (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The article begins by saying: "CAIR, is a human rights and civil liberties organization." Glenn Greenwald is known the fucking world over as a premier civil libertarian. A documentary partially about him and his civil libertarian reporting won the Academy Award last year. A film about him and Snowden is due out ing December. Having him connected to their organization certainly falls under "good" for CAIR.---Mona- (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not "wearesoinlovewithGlennGreenwald-wiki" This is Rationalwiki. Let's keep it that way. And for all who say drink, I say cheers! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I's said Grenvald's comments are moderately worth mentioning, though I hate to see Raw Story as a source. Also, if the movie thing was released after, note that, but take note of any potential trailers provoking response etc. as needed. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Childish ad homs and non sequiturs from Avenger do not constitute rebuttals of my arguments.---Mona- (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"Also, if the movie thing was released after, note that" But were the principals of CAIR already actively speaking out against the film before it was technically founded? I don't get the purpose of insinuating some "lie?" What, they were actually organizing to...what??!---Mona- (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, probably presume the answer is NOT "grand Myslamic conspiracy" but if a conspiracy-minded person could think that, explain why their conspiracy theory is wrong. I don't mean to say there was some grand lie, but let's go into detail about why not? WalkerWalkerWalker 02:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR smack the Acengers of the world with facts showing that the discrepancy if any gas a rational explanation (or isn't a discrepancy at all.) WalkerWalkerWalker 02:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I moved the Greenwald thing to a new section for "support and endorsements." Mayeb taking it out of the "good" section will calm the objections of relevance. As for the nefarious implications about the founding, leave the burden on those promoting this notion -- it's stupid unless there is some there there. ---Mona- (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Um, Mona, I think the "The good" section is really more for things CAIR has done. If Greenwald's quote mentioned anything about what CAIR has achieved then it'd add something to that section, but now it's just a simple endorsement plus a repetition of the already noted fact that Muslims are met with much hostility since 9/11. CAIR is a human and civil rights organization, do we really need to mention every notable person in the civil rights field that supports it? If anything, the people not supportive of it seem more noteworthy in this regard (and not in a positive sense). (talk) 02:20, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I do think mentioning notable people who support CAIR is important; rather than omit Greenwald I'd add others. We know how the wingnuts characterize CAIR. Over at Conservapedia they posit that CAIR may not even really be a civil lliberites group. Isn't it the role of RW to dispel such bullshit by showing sensible and well-known civil libertarians support CAIR?---Mona- (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is why I thought it only moderately inclusion-worthy: the better route is to demonstrate on our own that they work for actual civil rigts, not Hamas. While I don't think the Grenvald quote needs to be excluded, it's not evidence of much, save that someone views something somehow. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just out of general curiosity.... Does CAIR happen to have a stance on BDS? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Some diggin later: CAIR's website on True Lies. Note that they nowhere claim to have been founded as a response to it. Unless someone finds an old press release out there somewhere saying that they were, I'm going to add that they do not claim that origin. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:PacWalker, that works for me. But if said "old press release" is located, I would still want to know why there should be some insinuation of nefarious lying? — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs
I originally put that in there because the Wikipedia article lists that as a reason for CAIR's founding. CorruptUser (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw that. They seem to lean on one third-party overview of Muslim life in the US, which does not itself name its source of that information. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
User:PacWalker, good catch. — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs
"One origin story" doesn't sound like it's something CAIR claims as their origin anyway. And it turning out as untrue doesn't imply anything nefarious to me. (talk) 02:57, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Right, CAIR does not seem to claim it; my point was that there really is no conspiracy or even discrepancy here. Basically, the discrepancy of dates that someone keeps trying to throw mention of in is based around an a claim about CAIR's origins that they don't actually make. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

An actually troubling tidbit[edit]

It says on the page that acts perpetrated against military targets are usually not seen as "terrorism", yet in our page on "state terrorism" we also list the bombing of Dresden that has in deed been called terrorism variously. (Note that I won't at this point provide my opinion on the merits of this claim as I think that would only distract from the topic). However, Dresden was a legitimate military target at the time and bombing could not be done with any semblance of accuracy greater thaen "bomb this general area, try to hit that general area less". Even during the various wars in Iraq when "surgical precision" of bombing was widely advertised, there were certain cases of bombs hitting something that was not the intended target. And that's after half a century of improved weaponry. Point is: The city of Dresden as a whole could either be bombed or not be bombed and the city of Dresden as a whole on February 13, 1945 does constitute a military target. Hence I say we either reword this or say in which contexts targeting military targets has or hasn't been considered "terrorism" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually read the state terrorism article, or just looked at stuff listed there? I think you skipped over this part: "The concept of state terrorism was first identified by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in the late 1970s. It remains a very controversial idea in international relations, as the definition of terrorism usually involves it being committed by non-governmental actors. "State terrorism" is hard to distinguish, then, from regular military or law enforcement activity in any repressive regime." (talk) 02:27, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
The current wording makes no claim as to whether hitting military targets is' terrorism. It only makes a statement as to whether it has been called terrorism. This, I'd say, is demonstrably false. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The current wording is accurate. Most operating definitions of terrorism do not include attacks on military targets.---Mona- (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Eh, sounds to me you're just being obtuse and pedantic. Though I'll say your edit seems mostly harmless. (talk) 02:40, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm trying to be exact. What's the harm in that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
My version is exact; it is accurate. Utterly accurate. But the other option is to simply leave out the parenthetical altogether.---Mona- (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Greenwald, ACLU etc.[edit]

Once the article is unprotected, I'd add to the support and endorsements section the ACLU and some other prominent civil libertarian groups and people. RW was founded in part to counter the bullshit at Conservepedia, and the bullshit about CAIR over there is that they are a terrorist organization and not really interested in civil liberties. In my view, endorsements and awards from reputable civil libertarians provides worthwhile information to counter an insidious -- and false -- wingnut smear.---Mona- (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The better demonstration of their intent would be to analyze their work in the field of civil liberties, lack of financial ties to Hamas/IJ/whomever, etc., not pepper testimonials about. One or two might be worthwhile as a summary/something, but they don't make a great argument. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to show their intent. I'm offering endorsements from reputable and respectable entities and people along the lines of "character evidence" in trials. Smearing is easy; unsmearing, not so much. The thing to do is simply let the reputable civil libertarian experts speak.---Mona- (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Facts are not determined in a court of law. I don't care what anybody has to say about them, no matter how (dis)reputable. I only care what they do and who they are. Let their own words and their actions speak for them. Not some endorsement testimonial. Even if it came from Eli Manning and his two Super Bowl rings themselves.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I and others care what civil libertarians have to say about CAIR. The wingnuts have badly smeared them, and it is important to show that reputable civil libertarians see CAIR as another civil liberties organization in good standing. What could you possibly object to in countering wingnut smearing? Isn't that part of the mission of this site? Don't you think RW should support civil libertarian organizations that the ACLU has endorsed against rightwingers? Individuals come to encyclopedias for sketches -- not to become experts themselves on a topic. Seals of approval are information form the experts to the layman. Don't we include in the evolution entry that virtually all reputable scientists accept it?---Mona- (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
What some nobody that most of us have never heard of thinks about CAIR does not belong in the list of good things CAIR has done. CorruptUser (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Right. That's why I created a separate section for awards (ACLU) and endorsements (Greenwald) from prominent civil libertarian entities. That's useful information. Greenwald is internationally famous. FFS a film largely about him won the Academy Award last year, and Oliver Stone has cast Zacahary Quinto as Greenwald ina film due out in December. The man won the Pulitzer and a Polk and is regularly on TeeVee all over the globe. His last book was on the NYT bestseller list, and other bestseller lists all over the world (i.e., e.g., Germany).---Mona- (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually CorruptUser, whether you or I have ever heard of him is completely inconsequential as to whether or not the guy is noteworthy. (talk) 01:05, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'll concede that point, 141. CorruptUser (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Since Mona and I are going to get into another edit war again, CAIR was founded by a number of members of the Islamic Association of Palestine which had provided funds to Hamas. When I had originally created the article, it was due to reading the sources on our Muslim Brotherhood article which was the only place I could find the whole MB manifesto from 2004 which details their plans for turning the US into an Islamic country that wasnt behind a paywall, and was reading some of their other stuff. As Mona mentioned, the website it was hosted on is questionable, so yeah I'll concede that. But I don't think it's only a "wingnut conspiracy" that CAIR was originally founded to promote the MB/Hamas given that it was founded by people who were originally part of a group organized to promote Hamas. CorruptUser (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your linked source is a wingnut source, citing to other wingnuts. It is one extended McCarthyite smear. But perhaps you could get specific about how founders of CAIR "provided funds to Hamas?" If you can document exactly who gave what to whom, and for what purpose, I don't have a problem with that. But that source doesn't do that, unless I missed something. ---Mona- (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it was a bad source, but I had followed it from another article we had on the MB (and the wingnut source was the transcripts of the senate hearings or whatever), and wasn't aware of the wingnuttery. So yeah, my bad. As for the founders, here is the wikipedia sourceWikipedia in a better wikipedia format, not to mention Ghassan ElashiWikipedia. Are these sufficient for you? CorruptUser (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't clear about my source criticism. That WP entry cites to a wingnut -- Daniel Pipes. The source doesn't justify the claim, unless I missed something. And civil libertarians, myself included, are appalled by the Holy Land prosecutions. In my strong view, history will regard these types of cases as we now do the Smith Act cases. It seems every era has some group targeted for excessive concern and even hatred that makes the courts lose their civil libertarian shit for a bit. But so far we've generally managed to correct in due time.---Mona- (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh, there's there problem. So, yay, I learned something today. Ok, so it seems like their relations are tenuous at best, down to one chapter leader who happened to be friendly with Hamas (nutpicking) and receiving some funding from other groups without themselves having been confirmed funding in return. So, maybe worth an investigation, but not enough for a conviction. CorruptUser (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then edit war averted! And now, I must get to my Philip Roth novel and then to sleep. G'nite.---Mona- (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Who gives a crap about endorsements?[edit]

Seriously, how does it matter who likes them? We don't include everybody who ever said something nice about them in articles on Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump - and in that case it actually matter, at least according to some geeks on the web Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That is all discussed above, including the reasoning justifying the inclusion.---Mona- (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the reason is your constant damn fan-girling over this guy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. You got me there. I made up that a world-renowned civil libertarian -- who won a Pulitzer for civil libertarian reporting in the "public service" -- addresses CAIR conventions and publicly defends them and their mission. Just because he's so cool when he smiles at the camera. Now, when you get a chance, and if it's not too hard, you could try addressing the substantive reasons I cited above in defense of this information.---Mona- (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Greenwald didn't win a pultizer prize; the Guardian and WaPo did. Mind if we remove that bit from his bio? CorruptUser (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Mainstream media all over reports Greenwald as winning a Pulitzer because in the "public service" category the award always goes only to the paper, but it's understood it wouldn't have happened without the journalist. But I tweaked your change and that's fine. He did receive an individual Polk award.---Mona- (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Who gives a crap? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, deja vu. I think there's a glitch in the Matrix. (talk) 16:41, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
OH SHIT THE AGENTS ARE COMING RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You do, Avenger. You give a crap.---Mona- (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
About Greenwald?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Wait, what? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was asking myself, too. She was fangirling for Greenwald here across articles and thinks, you godda be at least give a shit about him in the negative sense, too, since who can just ignore his Holiness Glen the First?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It'd be easier to believe you guys really didn't give any craps in either direction if you didn't make such a big deal out of not giving a crap. (talk) 17:31, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Ayup. They so totally give many, many craps.---Mona- (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Your psychological projection is over 9000!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to sweep the Islamic Association of Palestine under the rug.[edit]

If you think the prosecution of the IAS and Holy Land Foundation was a sham trial, feel free to make that claim and defend it in this article. But to just pretend that CAIR didn't evolve out of IAS, which actually DID have ties to Hamas via its founder (who never came to CAIR), is the sort of lie-of-omission that this site is supposed to debunk.

Same goes for CAIR employees who have been deported and/or convicted of terrorism related offences. If you think they've been unduly persecuted, feel free to defend that claim. But don't try to erase all history of their connections to CAIR.

First of all, please sign all your contributions to talk pages by putting this ~ symbol four times in a row. Like this ~~~~. As for your statements, I am sure you have some sources to back them up? If you have good sources, I am sure nobody will object to you mentioning this in the article. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Almost all that stuff about CAIR "employees" is false. And there's no evidence of this "parent organization" claim re: IAP. Give evidence from credible sources, or it doesn't belong in the article.---Mona- (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a classic shell game when one organization is too immersed in scandals or liabilities, to fold it and move all assets and personnel into a new, "unrelated" entity. Even Wikipedia acknowledges "Former Islamic Association of Palestine staffers and members were founding members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)." Now, it happens that the only people who care enough to collate all the relevant information together are fairly wingnut, but Daniel Pipes et al aren't lying that IAP was linked to Hamas, and CAIR was founded by ex-IAP personnel.Milesmcstylez (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
On the employees, the only one that CAIR even disputes is Rabih Haddad. Milesmcstylez (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not a "shell game" and you are practicing McCarthyite guilt by association. Further, scads of claims you and others have tried to insert are either unsupported by references given, or are flatly false. FACTS matter.---Mona- (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
CAIR downplays, but doesn't deny, the affiliation they had with those individuals. It is a matter of public record that IAP members founded CAIR. My references DID say as much, you simply deleted them.Milesmcstylez (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

From CAIR's site:

McCarthy-like attempts to portray CAIR as guilty by association with certain individuals evoke memories of attempts to smear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a communist or womanizer.

The smears normally involve the following individuals: Ismail Royer, Dr. Bassem El-Khafagi, Rabih Haddad, and Ghassan Elashi.

ISMAIL ROYER -- In January 2004, Royer pled guilty to weapons charges. He did not plead guilty to any charge of "terrorism." Any criminal action to which he pleaded guilty was done when Royer was no longer employed with CAIR and it was certainly not at CAIR's direction.

Agreed. CAIR did nothing illegal here.Milesmcstylez (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

BASSEM EL-KHAFAGI -- El-Khafagi was never an employee of CAIR and was never convicted on terrorism charges. According to the Associated Press (AP) article announcing his plea, federal officials stated that he was charged with writing bad checks in February and June of 2001. El-Khafagi was an independent contractor for CAIR, effective November 2, 2001. The actions of which he was accused occurred before any relationship with CAIR had commenced and without any knowledge by CAIR's of any wrongdoing on his part. Writing bad checks is a criminal offense, not terrorism. Surely if there had been strong evidence of terrorist activities, the Justice Department would have vigorously pursued those avenues and not allowed him to plead guilty to non-terrorism related charges.

So yeah, as I said, he was indicted on terrorism-related charges, and plea-bargained out of them.Milesmcstylez (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

RABIH HADDAD -- Haddad was never an employee of CAIR. He was "deported for overstaying his tourist visa" and was "never charged with a crime." He was never an employee or associate of CAIR. His only association with CAIR was as a speaker at a single CAIR chapter event. He was not a "CAIR fundraiser," as is sometimes claimed.

Granted, and removed.Milesmcstylez (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

GHASSAN ELASHI -- Elashi was never an employee or officer of CAIR. The fact that Elashi was once briefly associated with one of our more than 30 regional chapters has no legal significance to our corporation since any actions he took were outside the scope and chronology of his association with one of our chapters.

---Mona- (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

By "briefly associated" they of course mean he FOUNDED that chapter. And again, nobody is saying what he did was in the course of his CAIR duties.Milesmcstylez (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
From a legal standpoint, CAIR's defence attorney's are correct. The organization hasn't done anything illegal. But if Sam Harris had hired several Aryan Brotherhood members on the board of Project Reason, who went on to be either indicted, deported, or convicted due to charges stemming from hate crimes, I sincerely doubt you'd write off people using them to criticize Project Reason as "McCarthyite smearists". Who an organization chooses to ally themselves with matters. The plain truth is CAIR has more in common with Hizb ut-Tahrir (another group that never does anything illegal) than they do with the ACLU.Milesmcstylez (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sam Harris seems to be a thorn in your side. But he has nothing to do with this article. CAIR has not done anything wrong or illegal and tons of the shit you've inserted is absolutely false, and/or the references do not support it. Or it's a smear of guilt by association, just like when civil rights workers were linked with Communists who also supported civil rights. I've protected the page for sysops only for one day. Either support your claims with facts, and/or be sure they are true, or do not edit.---Mona- (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Adding: I can't find any non-wingnut source saying GHASSAN ELASHI founded CAIR in TX. The NYT reference use is also at WP but the source doesn't say that. Do you have a credible source?---Mona- (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
If Electronic Intifada is a valid source, then so is a site like jihadwatch, discover the networks, or Pipeline News, which has the following information:

"Future CAIR leadership was present at the infamous "1993 Philadelphia meeting" which FBI documents describe as "a meeting in the United States among senior leaders of HAMAS, HLFRD [Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development] and IAP." According to FBI documents, the meeting was attended by future CAIR board chairman Omar Yahya Ahmed and future founding board member of the Texas CAIR chapter Ghassan Elashi." - Matthew Epstein/Investigative Project, testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, September 16, 2003. [a href="">Link to Epstein testimony.

Milesmcstylez (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, WHOA. So, we're accepting what CAIR says as completely-factual-every-other-source-is-wrong? Sorry, if you're a contractor? You are STILL an employee of the organization. That goes for anywhere. Contracting doesn't mean they get a pass.
You are deliberately whitewashing this. That's not on. --Castaigne (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Contractors, by definition, are not employees.---Mona- (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Semantics. I pay you to work for me, you're my fucking employee. This is RationalWiki, not a court of law where you get to make semantic arguments. You're still whitewashing. Don't deny it. --Castaigne (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You need to track the FR. He's been inserting all sorts of fasle and/or unsourced stuff. His claims do not bear out. Or, when those claims fail, he wants guilt by association.---Mona- (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
They do not bear out according to you. And I consider you an unreliable and partisan narrator. --Castaigne (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
How did I not know about Hizb ut-Tahrir before today?! Also, new idea for an article... CorruptUser (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to tell Mona that RW is no court of law before. Apparently to no avail. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Rather obviously RW is not a court. However, the Rules of Evidence are derived from Western empiricism and rationality. What drives them drives all reliable ways of knowing things about what happens in the physical world. And, as is true of courts, on occasion reasonable judgment must assess whether an argument is supported by the evidence offered. I am not unreasonable in this regard and have immediately conceded it on the few occasions it was shown to me that a thing I had claimed was so, in fact, is not.---Mona- (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That Last Edit[edit]

Uh, I don't think you followed the references. The NYT specifically states that Elashi was one of those convicted. "Ghassan Elashi, left, and Shukri Abu-Baker, two of the five leaders of the Holy Land Foundation convicted on Monday." And the Khafagi link DOES say was deported and charged. So how is this false? The statements are factually correct. --Castaigne (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

See above. Doesn't say Elashi was a co-founder of TX CAIR.---Mona- (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That's what CAIR says. From Wikipedia, "Ghassan Elashi was a founder of the charitable group Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and the Texas branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations," and the US Department of Justice agrees. --Castaigne (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
And that's backed up by the ADL. --Castaigne (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
1. I searched before taking CAIR's word, and 2. the DOJ doesn't say that. Neither does the Dallas Morning News.---Mona- (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
And who made you the arbitrator who decided that we would take CAIR's word unilaterally? Unlock the page. This is not your fucking playground. --Castaigne (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not treating it as a "playground." Endless edits that were false or unsourced (see the FR), and he wouldn't stop reverting.---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, the difference between an employee and a contractor is not "semantics." Contractors are independent and control themselves; the client does not. The client buys services and the relationship between the two parties can be extremely limited---Mona- (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I repeat, if I pay you, you are mine. It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a partner, an associate, a contractor, an employee, or what-the-fuck-ever. I tell you what work to do, what opinions you're allowed to have, and what you will do with your time.. Or you get fired. That is every work relationship ever, the boss and the wageslave. Call yourself a contractor? Fine. Do what I tell you or be fired. Be obedient to my dictates or be fired. Give me a blowjob on my command or be fired. I am the BOSS. --Castaigne (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You are quite intemperate and most unreasonable.---Mona- (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And you expect, that anyone here gives a fuck about your shystering (nope, "shyster" has no antisemitic etymology).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a saying in some place "Whose bread I eat, their song I sing" - There's some truth to that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Plus, it's a tad implausible that CAIR didn't know about the Islamist views of any of these individuals when they decided to collaborate with them. It's not a coincidence that CAIR's employees/contractors/speakers often turn out to be Islamist sympathizers, but never turn out to be Zionist sympathizers.Milesmcstylez (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

CAIR is a goddamn liar[edit]

And so I just used my work's access to get the list of officers for the years 2002 and 2004 from IRS Form 1990 from GuideStar. And guess who's fucking on them? Elashi. A pity I can't attach it here, considering it'll have my employer's information all over it, but it's available for anyone who wants to pay to look.
You know, for being a hotshot fucking lawyer all buddy-buddy with Greenwald, Mona, you are shit at your research and due diligence. Just saying. --Castaigne (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(Along with Azhar Azeez, G. Warriach, M. Elmougy, M. Elibiary, and Mona Abou Say. All with the title of Board Members, complete with their home addresses, in case anyone else is curious as to who the founding board is. If a clean copy of the 1990 is acquired, we'd probably want to black out that information before attaching.) --Castaigne (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Any chance you can redact all the employer-related information and post it? I realize it's an absurd request, but apparently it's necessary to placate the denialists interested skeptics who edit this article from time to time.Milesmcstylez (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If you have documentation then that's fine. But I could find none from any but wingnut sources. Nothing from the DOJ, nor the local newspapers. That guy was making all kinds of false and unsourced claims, and there is everything right about demanding proof of claims, especially when a user has been citing false ones. If you can document this claim, that's fine. Odd, however, that you can't find this reported in something like NYT or the Dallas papers. At any rate, it's not reasonable for you to be so hostile to me when the other user was making false and unsourced edits, and I simply wanted FACTS. Sourcing. Show a copy of their tax documents that can be cited indicating there is a fact here and I have no objections, provided everything else claimed is also true and reasonable.---Mona- (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No. I'm done. You didn't do your due diligence. I'm not going to put up documentation that has my employer's info all over it either. You automatically assume bad faith with everyone who does not agree with you. There is only one way to deal with this issue and I prefer to take that route. --Castaigne (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me see if I've got this straight: The FR reveals a user who has littered the article with false and/or unsourced claims, and the one you now defend can't be supported by any sources other than wingnut ones. Oh, and a source you can't share. But I failed due diligence. I see.---Mona- (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC

I've been rechecking some of the proffered links and claims. Here's another false one: several users were insisitng on inserting that CAIR refused to specifically denounce terrorism by Hamas. Well, even Fox news reports:

Asked about the assertion that CAIR is unwilling to condemn Hamas, Hooper pointed to a CAIR statement issued in March, on the fifth anniversary of the Madrid, Spain, train bombings that killed nearly 200 people.

"We unequivocally condemn all acts of terrorism, whether carried out by Al Qaeda ... (or) Hamas ... or any other group designated by the U.S. Department of State as a 'foreign terrorist organization,'" the March statement said."

As the article said, they'll condemn acts of terrorism, but won't condemn Hamas as an organization. To quote Nihad Awad:

First, concerning the issue of Palestine, we have personal opinions which we stated at the time. But now we work for the CAIR foundation; the CAIR foundation represents the Muslim masses in America--this is an Islamic endowment. The truth [is that] the rumor which was spread about CAIR is an Israeli viewpoint, which paints the Muslim community with a broad brush. This is the price of not condemning liberation movements, whether in Palestine or Lebanon. I truly do not condemn these organizations. I will condemn them only when I see that media outlets are requiring the heads of Jewish foundations in America to condemn Israel for its treatment of innocent people; for killing people whether in Lebanon, Qana, or Palestine; for bulldozing their homes; and for their flagrant human rights violations. Not one question [like these] has been directed to any leader of a Jewish foundation in America, so why are the questions being directed at Islamic and Arab foundations in America?

We should put pressure on media and political bodies in America to not look at an important segment of American society--the Islamic segment--from the foreign Israeli viewpoint. We are a segment of American society, and we should be looked at from a purely American viewpoint--not a foreign one, which looks at the Muslim community as if it threatens the interests of Israel. Does the Muslim community in America threaten Israel's interests?! I say that the Muslim community attempts to protect its own interests, and build positive relationships. It has become a bridge of cooperation between the Islamic world and the American administration. This annoys some, but we are not responsible for that.

Talal al-Haj: Do you, a segment of American society, accept the laws accepted by the society? American law states that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Is my question clear?

Nihad 'Awad: This is the only Arab and Christian Senator, and his image was placed next to the image of bin Laden--why? Because he took a position which was different than those of the Israeli pressure groups. No Arab or Muslim leader, or Arab or Islamic foundation in the United States have been spared this accusation, and we are no exception. We do not and will not condemn any liberation movement inside Palestine or Lebanon. If they want us to condemn a liberation movement inside Palestine or Lebanon, then they should condemn Israel ten times over on all levels at all times. We will not condemn any foundation. We are not under the hammer of any person, and we are in a free country. Why [should] we give up our principles?

The Islamic community and world hopes for foundations which are committed to their principles. If we are prevented from meeting with any authority because of this, then we will be proud and will continue our work. We will not give up, Allah-willing. [...]

(translation of an interview in Arabic found here (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Going to play devil's advocate here, but certain areas of Western countries do not designate the entire organization of Hamas as a terrorist organization, only its military wing (these include Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and the EU), so he's no really that much of an extremist to refuse to condemn its entire organization (at least by the standards of countries I listed above). ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
That's fair, but he refuses to condemn Hamas at all, and same goes for Hezbollah (hence the Lebanon references) who as far as I know are designated as terrorists in their entirety by Western governments. Plus, for a group like CAIR to 1) complain about how people constantly allege they have ties to Hamas and 2) take a very milquetoast to speaking about against Hamas, is to try to have their cake and eat it too.Milesmcstylez (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The same nations listed above only list Hezbollah's military wing as a terrorist organization (the US I believe removed them in terms of being a threat to the country earlier this year). Unlike other Islamist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah do not entirely reject working in politics or in a democratic system, hence the possible distinction among certain countries. Well, it is possible to support an organization as a matter of free speech while not providing significant material support to their military activities/operations. Needs to be distinction between anti-terrorism laws and free speech, because there may be a chilling effect on free speech if one is accused of aiding terrorists (without substantial evidence). ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The distinction between military and political wing is bullshit. Just because the a terrorist organization doesn't only use bombs, rockets and mortars, but also propaganda doesn't make it any less a terrorist organization.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hezbollah themselves like to laugh about the distinction others make between their "military" and their "political" wing. They are both one and the same. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is nothing illegal about CAIR, nor should there be. CAIR is just in very awkward circumstances due to its origins and its history. Basically, the chronology goes, an organization called the Islamic Association of Palestine was set up with Muslim Brotherhood seed money to be the PR and fundraising wing of Hamas in the US, and was founded/headed by a known Hamas member. IAP did its fundraising via a charity called the Holy Land Foundation, which funneled money to Hamas. HLF got busted by the Feds and shut down, and IAP was investigated as well, and described by FBI investigators as the face of Hamas in the US. What ultimately sunk IAP was being found liable in a civil suit for $150 million for fundraising for Hamas, rather than any criminal conviction. The reason I mention IAP and HLF is because CAIR was founded by all ex-IAP personnel, and was an unindicted conspirator in the criminal investigation into HLF.
So, given the IAP connections, the history of being blacklisted by the FBI for being too cozy with Hamas, etc. etc., it would make all the sense in the world for CAIR to distance themselves from Hamas AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE to rehabilitate their image. The fact that they pussyfoot around categorically condemning Hamas is an indicator that either a) their PR department needs to be roundly sacked, or b) they can't critize Hamas too vigorously without jeopardizing their funding, which comes mainly from outside the US, and it has been alleged that most of the funding comes from the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies in Gulf States. In August 1999, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), a Saudi-based entity, donated “$250,000 as a contribution to the purchase of land in Washington DC to be the headquarters for an education and research center under the aegis of CAIR. Also, in 2002, CAIR received $500,000 from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a prominent Islamist sympathizer. World Assembly of Muslim Youth, International Institute of Islamic Thought, and International Islamic Relief Organization are some other organizations that have provided quite a bit of funds to CAIR, and they have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Al Qaeda.
The upshot of all of this is that there are more than a few people that are extremely interested in whether CAIR is willing to openly condemn groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood (not just condemning certain activities), and CAIR has been highly evasive on the subject. If this was some sort of "rational" wiki, these sorts of questionable funding arrangements, past affiliations of management, and other issues like current/former employees being investigated for participating in/financing terrorism would be discussed on the main page. The problem is there is approximately a 37% chance that Mona is actually a Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet account (he's been known to use them) and everything remotely critical of CAIR gets edit-warred into oblivion.Milesmcstylez (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, though given how critical I am of using the term Islamophobia to silence criticism of Islam, I'm also a little reluctant to associate terrorists/jihadists/Islamists labels with Muslim groups without coming off as someone who wants to penalize any Muslim group on account of their admittedly illiberal political views. Quilliam, an anti-extremist group, actually got into heat for cobbling groups like the Muslim Council of Britain, Islamic Human Rights Commission, and other organizations together for having Islamist sympathies, which I think goes a little too far in stigmatizing people with social conservative views, especially given that they're a minority and the recent migrant situation has attracted far-right anti-immigrant activists who want to complain of an Islamic invasion of Europe. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm also not a fan of accusing organizations of being terrorist sympathizers just for having socially conservative positions (though those positions can and should be criticized in their own right). Accusations of CAIR being an Islamist group has less to do with them championing conservative Islam (though they do that too) and more to do with Hamas connections being all over their upper management and funding like a cheap suit. I was also thinking about adding something to the article about CAIR championing the use of "Islamophobia" to stigmatize criticism of Islam, but given how controversial just talking about their Director's resumes has proven to be, that discussion looked like a recipe for even further edit warring.Milesmcstylez (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And claiming Obama has ordered the FBI to behave toward CAIR just as Bush did is false. In fact, Obama has come under fire at wingnut sites for meeting with CAIR and for his administration announcing the government does not deem CAIR to be a terrorist organization: "State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said, 'The United States does not consider these U.S. organizations (CAIR and MAS) to be terrorist organizations.'" ---Mona- (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, at the beginning of Obama's presidency he did continue the Bush policy of quasi-blacklisting CAIR. He later reversed that policy, but it did continue past the Bush years. I'd cite sources but they're not CAIR's official website so I know you'll just reject them out of hand.Milesmcstylez (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You complaining about overly-partisan sources while taking CAIRs statement of legal defence as gospel truth is the height of hypocrisy. On another note, what would make a lot more sense is to add a completely new section to this page discussing the allegations against CAIR at some length, and debunking the ones that are false. But to instead zealously delete everything critical of CAIR or pointing out its many, many ties to Islamist groups and individuals, makes this seem less like a RW article and more like CAIR's "about our wonderful organization" masthead. Since this clearly means so much to you, I'll give you a couple days to add a new section to the article, otherwise I'll do it myself, and I trust Daniel Pipes over CAIR any day. Milesmcstylez (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't take anyone's word as gospel, including CAIR's. I did some spot fact-checking of their claims (I've done this before) and they checked out. Daniel Pipes is a wholly unreliable, far-right nut and I won't accept him as a source. This is not a wingnut site; it was founded to mock a wingnut site. CAIR has denounced Hamas terrorism. That's more than sufficient; they shouldn't be required to condemn terrorism at all, but they have. Moving on to administrative matters: Paravant has reverted all your edits, including the abusive one that included my name. If you continue edit warring, spewing the article with false claims, and abuse it by adding text about another user, I'll vandal bin you. You won't leave me any reasonable choice.---Mona- (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh please. You took CAIR's statements downplaying their affiliations with these people (eg. he was only a contractor we hired) and said that on that basis there was clearly no basis to any of the allegations. One guy had to go to the IRS website just to make the point that yes, ex-IAP personnel are in fact who founded CAIR. That's not even a controversial claim, and CAIR doesn't even deny it.
I'm really not interested in an edit-war either. But I'm not the only one who's noticed that you a) unilaterally decide whether a given source is trustworthy, and then b) scrub the wiki of anything you deem questionable. How many different people have you edit-warred with just on this page? The reasonable thing to do is list out the various allegations/scandals relating to CAIR and then go through the evidence for and against them, not to just whitewash them away as you're currently doing. Between that and the out-of-left-field idolatry of Glenn Greenwald, this article currently could rival anything on conservapedia in terms of rampant bias, and that appears to be thanks entirely to you. So yeah, at one point I left some edits for you parodying your own biased commentary peppered through the article. I'm going to bow out of the edit warring for a couple days, during which time I request that you add a section to the wiki outlining your take on CAIR's connections, or lack thereof, to 1) HLF, 2) IAP, 3) Hamas, 4) Muslim Brotherhood, and 5) the various people who are alleged to have worked with/for CAIR and got into legal hot water for financing/participating in terrorism. You can set it up as a debunking of those allegations if you like, though preferably with something a little more substantive than

"Wingnuts sometimes say X, but those people are stupid and wrong, and with the well thoroughly poisoned I would now like to direct your attention to how amazing Glenn Greenwald is"

Milesmcstylez (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Milesmcstylez: "If this was some sort of 'rational" wiki,'" Drink!~---Mona- (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)---Mona- (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding: I'm content to let others read the FR history as well as this talk page, and decide for themselves who is reasonable and who is not. What I'm not going to do is be drawn into tedious relitigation of all that history, your bullshit about Glenn Greenwald, or anything else. I'm here to edit RW articles, not to argue with people like you. Good night.---Mona- (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona would you please make a list of the editors whom you have pledged not to talk to anymore somewhere on your user page? If I count correctly, this list includes my humble self, Arisboch, The user you engaged here and (maybe) Sorte Slyngel. Did I forget anybody? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If your point is "Oh noes, Mona says/implies she won't talk to these people anymore and occasionally still does!" I must ask you the following: So effing what? (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
That was not my point, but thanks for assuming. My point was that it would be helpful whom Mona usually responds to and whom she does not usually respond to. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been quite clear in my position that I usually -- but not absolutely -- don't reply to Avenger. That hasn't changed. And I'm also not going to engage his pseudo-inquiries here.---Mona- (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
what about Arisboch? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

CAIR supporting Political conservative Islamic ideology[edit]

do you have any real proof from their site itself of them promoting a political religious doctrine, as it says under "the bad" section?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

No, and I edited it out. That particular editor has an extensive history of adding false claims and/or ones his source does not support and/or sources that are wingnut shit.---Mona- (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I pulled that directly from here and here (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Just word of advice on the first link Miles (I haven't read the second link). The article claims CAIR was criticizing Rosenwald for allegedly donating to anti-Islam hate groups. It mentions nothing about them spreading Islamism or any of that kind. And the Muslim scholars mentioned are not really representative of Islamic scholars as the headline claims (only 3 or 4 cited). They work for Gatestone Institute, which is a right-wing think tank lead by neoconservative John Bolton and is notable for producing articles related to concerns over Muslim immigration (xenophobia)/opposition to the Iran Deal/etc. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
For example, here: Here: Here: And more. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Noted. As a non-American, it's tough to keep all your various think-tanks and advocacy groups straight. On the article, it criticizes CAIR for going after an advocate for liberal Islam (having just followed your links, in hindsight that should probably be taken with a grain of salt) as well as pushing a highly politicized grievance narrative. The other article criticizes CAIR for indulging in far Islamist right-wing conspiracy theories, and given how critical of Grover Norquist it is I have a hard time picturing that as a right wing publisher. CAIR has also some under fire from people like Elham Manea for wanting North American media to scrub the term "Islamist" from their lexicon. First link I read it on was (disclosure, this is another news outlet I know nothing about) (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
At the time, The New Republic was under the editorial leadership of incredibly anti-Muslim bigot Marty Peretz. He has since retired to Israel. Hating Grover Norquist because he has an Arab wife and wants Arabs treated decently is right up Marty's ally.---Mona- (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Again with the electronic Intifada?[edit]

If it is true, there has to be another outlet saying similar things in so many words. If electronic Intifada is the only outlet saying soi, chances are, they are factually inaccurate. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

1. See my User page. 2. Even the ADL says the Foundation was a charity.---Mona- (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't use EI Mona. I'd cite an independent news agency instead. Otherwise, you're giving license to Avenger who himself has a history of using impartial sources (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs for example). ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
EI is not a government PR outlet; who beleives those? It is a journalistic outlet. Again, see my User page. I often will use reliable activist journalists for the reaons explained and linked to at my User page. Indeed, I have a pet peeve at those who think activist journalism is necessarily bad amnd sneer at them. It's not at all bad. It depends on the outlet's reputation. I do not -- decidedly do not -- use every pro-Paletinian outlet. Only those who value factual accuracy. Like EI---Mona- (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Well not just government outlets, but pro-Israel propaganda (CIF Watch, Elder of Ziyon, etc.) blogs as well. It'd be wise not to use unreliable sources like that, and that goes for both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian blogs. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. CiFWatch (now renamed UK MediaWatch) does not undertake investigative journalism. It exists to critique the media from a strongly pro-Zionist (hasbara) POV. EI is a journalistic outlet and Ali Abunimah is a competent, fact-based journalist. EI is a reliable journalistic outlet and deserves to be treated as such.---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm going to disagree here. I always use independent human rights organizations, scholarly books, and Israeli news agencies (i.e. Haaretz) to sustain my criticisms of Israel. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I use Haaretz, but have had complaints that it is paywalled. Anyway, Izzy Stone was not a "scholar" but he was a reputable, reliable and fact-based journalist. Scholarly sources are only one source -- and the scholarly world can be conservative due to many influences and incentives. Investigative journalism is also a good source and sometimes more free of institutional loyalty and bias.---Mona- (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris: To see what I mean about the difference between Abunimah and Zionist hasbara outlets, observe the difference in content when Abunimah is on a panel that includes a propagandist from Daniel Pipes' "think tank" who resorts to misdirection, handwaving and non sequiturs while Abunimah remains fact-based.---Mona- (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Strangely enough I agree[edit]

That section didn't belong. But rather than concede defeat, it was simply removed. Now if I had done that, I'd have had a good deal of well-meaning RW-contributors calling for disciplinary action. :-) Ain't life strange? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that what you need to hear? That I "conceded defeat?" Not on this. Because in these areas of sacred texts I know my stuff. I honestly just always thought that section was dumb. In the coming months I'll have more to add about CAIR, and it won't be that banal.---Mona- (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You did concede defeat, any which way you care to wrap it. And the entire article is banal. The only thing missing is Glenn Greenwald walking on water. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, you're an expert in these sacred texts? So how many Oriental languages do you speak. Having had some sort of religious major does not make you an expert. You do know, I'm sure, that a careful study requires many years of study for each text alone. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Those who repeatedly feel compelled to claim they won, or that other side is defeated, are very insecure. They must say it, AND SAY IT.---Mona- (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Pot kettle, black.... (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure at whom the above is directed, but it might very well apply to both. As it happens I have studied the exegesis of a few works. One of them was Grágás from which I gave Mona a couple of strange laws. And yes, you too have a tendency to declare victory, when its not in sight, hoping to carry the opinion with your writing skills. We might not stand so uneven in presenting our case, if the lingua franca were my language, not yours. Still, I believe you will find most of what I've written quite understandable. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I forgot. Mona, if there is anything I'm not, then it's insecure. I acknowledge what I don't know, and try to fill in the gaps if necessary. I don't think you can honestly say I've been insecure, hidden my opinions or in any way pussyfooted. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, you're not insecure. So take your winnings and cash out.---Mona- (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a reasonably good one for a beginner. :-) But I can't cash out yet. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Perhaps you wish to explain why Kadura is an extremely important case vital to CAIR? Because frankly, it looks to me like the ACLU did the lion's share of the work and CAIR was just a hanger-on. To be fair, I'm happy to list it in their favor.
Still don't see what's important about one nobody schmoe's fight against the watch-list, though. Kadura is no different from any of a hundred people doing the same thing in the past 15 years. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I am especially...curious about why the other 4 plaintiffs aren't mentioned and why it isn't pointed out that, while CAIR announced the filing of the suit, all of the heavy lifting was done by the ACLU. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, what makes this more significant than Hedges vs. Obama, or the current action issued in December by the Gun Owners of America, or any of the other lawsuits about the watch-list?
And especially, what is the relevance of the "no-fly" issue specifically to CAIR when it involves citizens of the USA on both the left AND right? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

CAIR very frequently works with the ACLU, but CAIR was Kedura's specific, personal lawyers. Muslim-Americans are especially targeted by the no-fly list (did you really not know this?), as I will be documenting. I will also be adding more of CAIR's case examples. The reading public is reasonably aware of what the ACLU does; not so much with CAIR. But as the article documents, the ACLU endorses CAIR, so this all ties in. I honestly do not understand your problem, or your claim that these edits constitute "fellating" CAIR.---Mona- (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Look Castaigne, you are being entirely unreasonable. You LANCBed a few months ago because your view did not prevail at an I-P related page where I was active. Now you are back and doing all of that again. CAIR is a civil liberties organization, and it is entirely proper that our article here would reflect the cases it takes on. Especially when one made it to the U.S. Supreme Court and their position was upheld.---Mona- (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)