I predict that the part before the comma
an anti-Semitic organization, as designated by the FBI
gets focused on, while the part after is ignored.
IOW, I still want link to the official FBI webpage that lists ‘anti-Semitic organizations as designated by the FBI’.
I’ll just note, this is one of those times that a ‘Well, I guess I was wrong about that.’ ain’t gonna cut it.
CMC fnord!
CAIR is a bullshit organization, but not because of anti-Semitism.
What fishy actions? And don’t trot out that bullshit about “married her brother”.
Fun fact: I just did a web search for “anti-semitic designated by fbi”. I got a lot of links where the FBI is accused of being anti-semitic. I certainly did not get anything showing the FBI “designates a group as anti-semitic”.
How so? Be specific. Show your evidence. Yeah, I know; that last word is to you like garlic is to a vampire.
About Hoda Abdelmonem, you reallydo think that people that defend unsavory guys in a law setting should lose **all **human rights? Do tell. /s
As for the rest: Conspicuously missing: VOA does not say that Omar was involved or mentioned along with the terrorist groups. Now why when AOL does not make even the second hand connection to Omar you are not then dismissive of the ones trying to set those connections with Omar? When VOA is not making connections but just pointing there at what terrors groups are doing?
This is because the claimed connections I have seen coming from unreliable bloggers out there about Omar being in league with guys like Jim’ale are very similar to the claims that tried to claim that Obama was in league with Bill Ayers, a second hand connection that is pumped up as if the target was in league with the devil (again, not what VOA said) when it was just bait for the naive.
You seem to still think that what the trollers out there don’t use mainstream or less biased press to hide the hook with the bait.
I am not, and you’re thread isn’t going like you planned.
You fucking fool.
He’s not lying. I PM’d a mod and verified that what Annoyed is true.
It’s still going better than yours.
Uh huh. Nothing like a self-own to REALLY show em.
You’re a liar or an idiot. (Or maybe both!) I consistently provide more detailed cites, with links and relevant excerpts, then 95% of the people who post here. Just like I did upthread from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Now, CAIR. They are Islamists who provide rhetorical support for the oppression of women, and play footsie with terrorists like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/will_dems_embrace_candidate_ba.html
I can’t quote from Google Books, but you can read about their Muslim Brotherhood connections here:
As I pointed out to Sage Rat concerning his own FBI-document cite on CAIR, all your cites are from 2010 or earlier. There is of course still a lot of controversy about CAIR, but more recent descriptions tend to tend to do a better job of sorting out the controversial issues. As in this 2019-updated RationalWiki overview:
That’s “the good”? 
That’s like saying Atwood’s Eyes are good because they fight for the rights of handmaids to wear those big bonnets.
Speaking as a card-carrying ACLU member, yup, that’s good. If free American Muslim women (including a few of my own colleagues at work) want to wear the headscarf, or free American Jewish men (also including a few of my own colleagues) want to wear the kippah, or free American Christian women (likewise) want to wear a cross necklace, then they should not be denied their right to that form of religious expression. Same goes for any other similar personal faith observance by anyone of any religion and/or gender.
As a lifelong atheist, I wouldn’t wear any religious symbol as a form of personal religious expression even if you paid me, but I absolutely will not tolerate or condone attempts to deprive non-atheists of their constitutional right to do so. You got a problem with that?
Do you honestly claim that CAIR (or most of its members) believe Muslim women should feel free to wear whatever they like?
I don’t claim to know what the various members of CAIR personally “believe” about Muslim women’s clothing choices.
What I do know is that CAIR as an organization, often in cooperation with local ACLU chapters, has frequently challenged in court unconstitutional discrimination against Muslim women for wearing a headscarf, which their constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties entitle them to do.
I consider this a good thing, because unconstitutional discrimination that infringes people’s constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties is bad.
Here’s an example of the ACLU and CAIR joining forces to defend a Christian woman’s right to wear a religious headscarf:
Now, the issue of how traditional patriarchal oppression of women influences customs prescribing religious headcoverings for women—not only in some Muslim communities but also in some Christian and Jewish communities as well—is an important one that shouldn’t be ignored. But it is separate from the broader issue of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religious expression and its defense by the courts.
As a general principle, if a competent rights-bearing grown woman of any faith says that she wants to wear a religious headcovering, she shouldn’t be unconstitutionally prevented from doing so, or unconstitutionally discriminated against for doing so.
That is true but doesn’t make CAIR awesome for selectively “defending” this while not standing up for other rights like freethinking.
Dang. I’m SURE I left those goalposts somewhere around here. Where could they have gone off to?
Pssst. They’re hiding in the parking lot!