CAIR Calls Bill To Support 9/11 Families “An Anti-Muslim Attack”
Some people regard the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) bill as common sense, as the legislation would bring changes to “the federal criminal code to permit civil claims against a foreign state or official for injuries, death, or damages from an act of international terrorism.” This means that Americans can sue foreign governments/officials for acts of terrorism.
This will lead to an inevitable conflict between the U.S. and some of its ‘allies’ like Saudi-Arabia, who are by the way, state-sponsors of terrorism. It’s been revealed by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) how this legislation would allow the victims of the 9/11 attacks to press charges against the country of Saudi Arabia that “generated 15 of the 19 hijackers who struck the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Flight 93[.]” Moreover, some lawmakers believe the U.S. could also “face lawsuits in foreign courts” – for example, because of controversial drone strikes.
It is clear that the legislation is something to worry about, but Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) seems to think the anti-terrorism measure is “an anti-Muslim attack.” IPT quotes Awad as saying:
The bill “is a continuation of the series of [actions] attaching terrorism to Islamic societies, the Islamic world and Islamic countries, as well as Islamic personalities, since it aims to demonize Islam,” an Investigative Project on Terrorism translation of Awad’s remarks said. “… so that things have reached the point of attaching the accusation of terrorism against Saudi Arabia, which is the heart of the Muslim world, and accusing it is an accusation of Muslims all over the world.”
Alright then, we’re asking Awad where is all of the Islamic terrorism coming from, if not from the Islamic community? According to TheReligionofP, ever since 9/11, there have been over 29,000 fatal terror attacks committed by Islamic terrorists. Speaking of 9/11, Investigative journalist Paul Sperry revealed part of evidence that point to Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the attacks, after the long awaited twenty-eight pages of the 9/11 report were divulged:
A CIA memorandum dated July 2, 2002, stated unequivocally that the connections found between the hijackers, the Saudi embassy in Washington and Saudi consulate in Los Angeles are “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government.”
Furthermore, it is revealed in the newly declassified documents that several FBI files point to two Saudi government employees who assisted the 9/11 hijackers as “Saudi intelligence officers.”
Even though most of the material is edited from various sources, it still clearly shows that there are Saudi government’s ties to the hijackers and other al Qaeda suspects were so extensive that the FBI’s Washington field office created a special squad to investigate the Saudi angle.
If Awad so firmly denies that Saudi Arabia has anything to do with 9/11, then will he also claim that Saudi Arabia has absolutely nothing to do with the global spread of Wahhabism?
If Awad claims that accusing Saudi Arabia of terrorism “is an accusation of Muslims all over the world[,]” since it’s the center of the Islamic world – why doesn’t he apply the same standard to other countries that guard a religion’s holy land?
For instance, an indictment against Israel’s government would also be an indictment against Jews worldwide.
Here’s one of his absurd claims posted on Twitter:
“#Israel is the biggest threat to world peace and security…”
Is the Israeli government spreading hatred and violence over non-Jews into synagogues across the world? Absolutely not. Yet, there are hundreds of mosques around the world where radical Islam is being preached, and we can clearly see that the Saudi government is pushing radical Islam. Awad and his CAIR cronies are aware that when the U.S. government conducts anti-terrorism measures they will uncover jihadists.
Is it possible that the 9/11 bill poses a financial conflict of interest for CAIR? Absolutely yes, since CAIR is hiding the fact that they receive foreign funding, which is seemingly in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). And let’s be real, some of the funding comes directly from the House of Saud, like when Prince Al-Walid bin Talal donated half a million dollars to CAIR in 2002.
The CAIR Observatory summarizes CAIR’s foreign relations:
- Received at least $2,792,203 in Contributions, Income and Money from foreign principals in the form of 11 distinct transactions
- Received a $2,106,251 mortgage loan from a foreign principal for their Washington, D.C. headquarters
- Secured the promise of at least $54,500,000 in pledges from foreign principals
- Met and coordinated with foreign principals on at least 35 occasions
- Engaged in more than 100 political influence operations on behalf of foreign principals in the United States
Maybe these are the reasons why the United Arab Emirates regard them as a terrorist organization. And the reason why CAIR strongly opposes the 9/11 bill is more than obvious – it will expose terrorist enterprise of Saudi Arabia as well as radical Muslim Brotherhood activities around the world.
The veto of the bill that President Obama gave was overturned after both the U.S. Senate (97-1) and the House (348-77) voted successfully. This is a small, but meaningful step toward defeating jihad and will also provide some sense of justice for the victim’s families of the 9/11 attacks.