NationStates Jolt Archive


CAIR is actually...

Remote Observer
04-06-2007, 17:17
a terrorist supporting organization...

Told you so ('http://www.nysun.com/article/55778')

Federal prosecutors have named three prominent Islamic organizations in America as participants in an alleged criminal conspiracy to support a Palestinian Arab terrorist group, Hamas.

Prosecutors applied the label of "unindicted co-conspirator" to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust in connection with a trial planned in Texas next month for five officials of a defunct charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

While the foundation was charged in the case, which was filed in 2004, none of the other groups was. However, the co-conspirator designation could be a blow to the credibility of the national Islamic organizations, which often work hand-in-hand with government officials engaged in outreach to the Muslim community.

A court filing by the government last week listed the three prominent groups among about 300 individuals or entities named as co-conspirators. The document gave scant details, but prosecutors described CAIR as a present or past member of "the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations." The government listed the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust as "entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood."

Told you so.

BTW, according to their last annual report, there seem to be about 2600 members of CAIR... obviously not very representative of American Muslims.

Maybe the average American Muslim KNOWS that CAIR is just a front organization peddling disinformation.
Soviestan
04-06-2007, 17:21
:rolleyes: Rubbish. CAIR is a simply an organisation that defends Muslim rights. To say otherwise is just right-wing spin.
Remote Observer
04-06-2007, 17:25
:rolleyes: Rubbish. CAIR is a simply an organisation that defends Muslim rights. To say otherwise is just right-wing spin.

Sounds like they have the evidence.

I'm not spinning it - it's what Federal prosecutors are saying.
UN Protectorates
04-06-2007, 17:25
So just because some Federal Prosecutors point thier fingers and yell, "conspirators!", it's true?
Skinny87
04-06-2007, 17:25
Sounds like they have the evidence.

I'm not spinning it - it's what Federal prosecutors are saying.

Because they've never been wrong before, have they...?
Soviestan
04-06-2007, 17:26
So just because some Federal Prosecutors point thier fingers and yell, "conspirators!", it's true?

yes of course. The government never lies:p
Szanth
04-06-2007, 17:26
Sounds like they have the evidence.

I'm not spinning it - it's what Federal prosecutors are saying.

Don't make me pull a McCarthy twist on Godwin.
Remote Observer
04-06-2007, 17:27
So just because some Federal Prosecutors point thier fingers and yell, "conspirators!", it's true?

They were right about the Holy Land Foundation, which is part of the same investigation.

Their evidence consisted of funds transfer records.

Same evidence here.
UN Protectorates
04-06-2007, 17:29
They were right about the Holy Land Foundation, which is part of the same investigation.

Their evidence consisted of funds transfer records.

Same evidence here.

Come back when the prosecutors have proved themselves in court.
Skinny87
04-06-2007, 17:32
So 'Innocent Until Found Guilty' is just a random phrase to you, RO?
UpwardThrust
04-06-2007, 17:36
a terrorist supporting organization...

Told you so ('http://www.nysun.com/article/55778')



Told you so.

BTW, according to their last annual report, there seem to be about 2600 members of CAIR... obviously not very representative of American Muslims.

Maybe the average American Muslim KNOWS that CAIR is just a front organization peddling disinformation.
What is exactly wrong with the 2600 number?
Remote Observer
04-06-2007, 17:37
Come back when the prosecutors have proved themselves in court.

Holy Land Foundation was convicted. How long do you think it will take to convict CAIR on the same information?
Szanth
04-06-2007, 17:39
What is exactly wrong with the 2600 number?

It's so many! Whoamg! So many, out of the entirety of the Muslim population!
UpwardThrust
04-06-2007, 17:40
It's so many! Whoamg! So many, out of the entirety of the Muslim population!

More then enough statistically for a representative sample... 2600 is plenty
Gravlen
04-06-2007, 17:41
Holy Land Foundation was convicted. How long do you think it will take to convict CAIR on the same information?

Three years and ten days, counting from an indictment. If they aren't aquitted, that is.
Hydesland
04-06-2007, 17:44
More then enough statistically for a representative sample... 2600 is plenty

2600 out of 1 and a half million, not really.
UpwardThrust
04-06-2007, 17:48
2600 out of 1 and a half million, not really.

Dont do much stats do you?
Normally to predict a population of 300 million we use a rough estimate of only 2400 to achieve a 5% CI 95% CL which is standard

Edit: that is rule of thumb you can actually get by a bit lower
Turquoise Days
04-06-2007, 17:49
Dont do much stats do you?
Normally to predict a population of 300 million we use a rough estimate of only 2400 to achieve a 5% CI 95% CL which is standard

This would be a random 2400 however? Unlike the 2600 members of CAIR, presumably.
UpwardThrust
04-06-2007, 17:53
This would be a random 2400 however? Unlike the 2600 members of CAIR, presumably.

Correct absolutely but that is not a problem with the SIZE as was stated with the OP that is with sampling methods which is considerably more slippery beast to get a hold on, and correcting with sample increases is bad practice at best
Kyronea
04-06-2007, 17:57
This would be a random 2400 however? Unlike the 2600 members of CAIR, presumably.

Indeed.

Besides, I'm hardly willing to take anything any of the people behind Deep Eve Remote Online Kimchi Observer at face value...they have destroyed any credibility they ever had with me.

That said, I'm not going to dismiss this out of hand as some of you are. Admittedly it's sketchy, but it's worth looking into, I think, if only to clear CAIR's name.

My question is, what will we do if CAIR really is funding Hamas?
UN Protectorates
04-06-2007, 17:57
Indeed.


My question is, what will we do if CAIR really is funding Hamas?

Punish the organisation to the fullest extent of the law?
Kyronea
04-06-2007, 18:05
Punish the organisation to the fullest extent of the law?

Well, yes, that much is obvious.

I meant what the repercussions might be. CAIR is one of the most well-known Islamic organizations in the United States, and is respected by many. It could create some serious problems for American Muslims, especially given some of the bigots out there, like everyone behind Remote Observer.
Kryozerkia
04-06-2007, 18:09
What is exactly wrong with the 2600 number?

It's the name of the Hacker Quarterly magazine, so federal prosecutes are afraid of a mass hacker-Muslim conspiracy! ;)
UpwardThrust
04-06-2007, 18:13
It's the name of the Hacker Quarterly magazine, so federal prosecutes are afraid of a mass hacker-Muslim conspiracy! ;)

Makes sense :)
Neo Art
04-06-2007, 18:35
Sounds like they have the evidence.

You know what word you seem to have missed in that article?

unindicted

CAIR hasn't been charged with anything.

I'm not spinning it - it's what Federal prosecutors are saying.

No they're not, otherwise they would have indicted already. The fact that CAIR has, in fact, NOT been charged with this, at all, seems only to indicate to me that the government lacks sufficient evidence to charge. So it doesn't sound like they have the evidence in the least bit.
Aryavartha
04-06-2007, 18:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gXoJU3VIM

watch from 04:16 ;)
Hydesland
04-06-2007, 18:58
Dont do much stats do you?
Normally to predict a population of 300 million we use a rough estimate of only 2400 to achieve a 5% CI 95% CL which is standard


Actually i'm studying stats as part of my maths course. To make statistics about population using a sample, you need a fair and random sample. And the 2600 is not a random sample of muslims, it's just the number of Muslims who are actually members of CAIR. If it had been a random sample, the number of CAIR members would be much lower.
Neo Art
04-06-2007, 19:03
Actually i'm studying stats as part of my maths course. To make statistics about population using a sample, you need a fair and random sample. And the 2600 is not a random sample of muslims, it's just the number of Muslims who are actually members of CAIR. If it had been a random sample, the number of CAIR members would be much lower.

sometimes what is otherwise seeming to be a non representative can be a fair and random sample.

For example, if I want to find the average date of...say...quarters. To do that I need to get quarters to study. So I go get quarters in multiple rolls from my local Bank of American branch. Now the argument can be that these weren't representative samples, they were the quarters only at Bank of America, not quarters generally.

However it's still a sufficiently random sample, because there was nothing inherent in being at Bank of America that would skew my data (ages of quarters). BOA doens't refuse quarters from before 1980 for example.

So even if a sample is chosen from a particular aspect rather than truly randomized, it should not affect the statistical data as long as the pool you have taken from is unrelated to data you're trying to study.

Now whether being a member of CAIR is somehow not representative of all american muslims...well, CAIR as a political action comittee will obviously attract to its membership people who agree with its political ideology, which does skew the sample.

So RO is somewhat right inspite of himself. 2600 is quite sufficient as a number to get a representative sample. So he's wrong there. However looking at CAIR's membership may not be representative, not because of its size, but because of its uniformity, as only people with specific beliefs join a political action committee.

But 2600 is certainly large enough a sample to be representative. So his claim of "it's hardly representative" is true, but not for the reasons he said.

Oh well, you get a D.
UpwardThrust
04-06-2007, 19:03
Actually i'm studying stats as part of my maths course. To make statistics about population using a sample, you need a fair and random sample. And the 2600 is not a random sample of muslims, it's just the number of Muslims who are actually members of CAIR. If it had been a random sample, the number of CAIR members would be much lower.

Thats fine but the comment was on the size and not randomness there is nothing wrong with the amount itself which is why I asked the original question because the OP made it seem like the number was the incorrect portion rather then selection
Greater Trostia
04-06-2007, 19:04
snip

RO, I know you're new to this whole "freedom" and "law" and "due process" and "human rights" thing, but repeat after me:

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

K dear?
Hydesland
04-06-2007, 19:11
However looking at CAIR's membership may not be representative, not because of its size, but because of its uniformity, as only people with specific beliefs join a political action committee.


Thats my point. It is representative to the population, only if you made it actually proportional to the population. I don't understand what the problem is here, if there is only 2600 CAIR members, that implys that most muslims are not CAIR members which was the point RO was trying to make. I really can't understand the trouble with this.
Hydesland
04-06-2007, 19:12
RO, I know you're new to this whole "freedom" and "law" and "due process" and "human rights" thing, but repeat after me:

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

K dear?

You can still speculate.
Neo Art
04-06-2007, 19:14
I really can't understand the trouble with this.

I think that it's because this thread, like so many RO posts, has been so rapidly debunked and so filled with errors, that after the first page there's really nothing left to do but argue about exactly how wrong he was.
Hydesland
04-06-2007, 19:14
Thats fine but the comment was on the size and not randomness there is nothing wrong with the amount itself which is why I asked the original question because the OP made it seem like the number was the incorrect portion rather then selection

No I think I see the problem now. RO was saying that CAIR is not very representative of the muslim population, not the size of the sample.
Neo Art
04-06-2007, 19:16
You can still speculate.

of course one can speculate. Outside the confines of a jury one is free to form whatever opinions he wishes on whatever evidence, or lack of evidence he finds appropriate.

However given that CAIR has not been charged with any crime, stemming from a trial that has been going on for three years, I would suggest there is a lack of sufficient evidence to justify an assumption that they are guilty.

But one is free to believe it anyway of course, I can't stop him.
Christlerland
04-06-2007, 19:22
So just because some Federal Prosecutors point thier fingers and yell, "conspirators!", it's true?

Because they've never been wrong before, have they...?

yes of course. The government never lies:p

thank GOD some Americans can still think. cuz lately it looks to the rest of the world like you are all as stupid as your president is.

plus, what the hell was that about hamas, being a terrorist orgaization? who are YOU (america) to determine who is terrorist and who isn't? why do you have the right to declare hamas terrorist, when it is the legaly and clearly elected party in Palestinian elections? what makes your government to think that you can declare a whole state and its gvt terrorists?

i am not bery objective here, but it looks to me like you have to stop trying to make the US what Orwell predicted
UpwardThrust
04-06-2007, 19:24
No I think I see the problem now. RO was saying that CAIR is not very representative of the muslim population, not the size of the sample.

I dont know bringing up the number of members then going right into "obviously not representative" but with no other comment other then member ship numbers ...
Hydesland
04-06-2007, 19:27
I dont know bringing up the number of members then going right into "obviously not representative" but with no other comment other then member ship numbers ...

Well it seemed like that was what he was talking about to me, I didn't think that he was talking about anything else.
Zilam
04-06-2007, 19:30
Oh, maybe I should unjoin their facebook group then. :(
Nodinia
04-06-2007, 19:33
Sounds like they have the evidence.

I'm not spinning it - it's what Federal prosecutors are saying.

If they have the evidence, why are they unindicted?

If it refers to members of that organisation, and the means the whole organisation is guilty, then aren't this lot (http://www.aipac.org/) just a front for intelligence gathering?
JuNii
04-06-2007, 19:37
Holy Land Foundation was convicted. How long do you think it will take to convict CAIR on the same information?as long as it will take. but really, it really shouldn't be tried in the media.

It's the name of the Hacker Quarterly magazine, so federal prosecutes are afraid of a mass hacker-Muslim conspiracy! ;)... the Hackers are funding Hamas?!?! :eek: :p :D [jking]
IL Ruffino
04-06-2007, 19:40
Oh, maybe I should unjoin their facebook group then. :(

You terrorist, you!
Nodinia
04-06-2007, 19:41
You terrorist, you!


Its wrong to assert that until hes found guilty of being too "muslim".
IL Ruffino
04-06-2007, 19:47
Its wrong to assert that until hes found guilty of being too "muslim".

To associate with Muslims it to associate with terrorism. Not really, but meh.
Greater Trostia
04-06-2007, 20:01
You can still speculate.

RO wasn't "speculating." he was concluding, and using a charge as a conclusion, and going "lolz i told you so" as if his speculation is proof of anything at all.
Gravlen
04-06-2007, 21:49
RO wasn't "speculating." he was concluding, and using a charge as a conclusion, and going "lolz i told you so" as if his speculation is proof of anything at all.

Using a "label", not even a charge...
Gauthier
04-06-2007, 21:51
RO, I know you're new to this whole "freedom" and "law" and "due process" and "human rights" thing, but repeat after me:

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty.

K dear?

Except the Deep Kimchi Gang doesn't think any of the above applies to Muslims at all. They're a bunch of Bushevik Daleks always looking for any article such as this one to pounce on as "proof" of how evil and inhuman Muslims are while chanting "EX-TER-MI-NATE!!" and "STE-RI-LIZE!!"
Kryozerkia
04-06-2007, 22:09
Except the Deep Kimchi Gang doesn't think any of the above applies to Muslims at all. They're a bunch of Bushevik Daleks always looking for any article such as this one to pounce on as "proof" of how evil and inhuman Muslims are while chanting "EX-TER-MI-NATE!!" and "STE-RI-LIZE!!"

Ah to be of a one-track mind. The simple life methinks; 'tis the ignorance of bliss and the bliss of ignorance.
The Cat-Tribe
05-06-2007, 01:55
Holy Land Foundation was convicted. How long do you think it will take to convict CAIR on the same information?

Man, you were too busy foaming at the mouth to read your own article. How sad.

First, Neo Art has already pointed out that CAIR has not been indicted. So they aren't going to be tried for anything, let alone convicted. As the indictment of Holy Land was made in 2004 and CAIR hasn't been indicted in the 3 years since then, they probably will never even be indicted.

Second, contrary to your statement, Holy Land Foundation has not been convicted. They've been indicted (big difference) and will be tried starting July 16.

Others have already pointed out that the presumption of innocence appears to have escaped you.
Gauthier
05-06-2007, 02:00
Man, you were too busy foaming at the mouth to read your own article. How sad.

First, Neo Art has already pointed out that CAIR has not been indicted. So they aren't going to be tried for anything, let alone convicted. As the indictment of Holy Land was made in 2004 and CAIR hasn't been indicted in the 3 years since then, they probably will never even be indicted.

Second, contrary to your statement, Holy Land Foundation has not been convicted. They've been indicted (big difference) and will be tried starting July 16.

Others have already pointed out that the presumption of innocence appears to have escaped you.

You are aware that the Deep Kimchi Gang operate under the premise that All Muslims Are Guilty Even When Proven Innocent right?
Free Soviets
05-06-2007, 02:05
You are aware that the Deep Kimchi Gang operate under the premise that All Muslims Are Guilty Even When Proven Innocent right?

and even in the case of innocence, a bit of genocide never hurt anyone
JuNii
05-06-2007, 02:07
Man, you were too busy foaming at the mouth to read your own article. How sad.

First, Neo Art has already pointed out that CAIR has not been indicted. So they aren't going to be tried for anything, let alone convicted. As the indictment of Holy Land was made in 2004 and CAIR hasn't been indicted in the 3 years since then, they probably will never even be indicted.

Second, contrary to your statement, Holy Land Foundation has not been convicted. They've been indicted (big difference) and will be tried starting July 16.

Others have already pointed out that the presumption of innocence appears to have escaped you.this is NSG TCT... Innocence is relative here.

a cop accused of shooting/tasering/killing someone and everyone jumps on the "OMG cops are corrupt!" bandwagon.

A Government Offical is under investigation and it's all Bush's fault. reguardless of what the investigation finds.

so some here already found HLF and CAIR and others guilty before the trial date is even put on the courtroom's calendar... Status Quo for NSG so far. :rolleyes:
JuNii
05-06-2007, 02:08
and even in the case of innocence, a bit of genocide never hurt anyone

Thank you Free Soviets... I just learned that spewing out chewed up pretzels are harder to clean out of the keyboard than soda... :D
Neo Art
05-06-2007, 02:12
Holy Land Foundation was convicted. How long do you think it will take to convict CAIR on the same information?

Second, contrary to your statement, Holy Land Foundation has not been convicted. They've been indicted (big difference) and will be tried starting July 16.



Wow, you're right, totally missed that. The OP somehow went from

"CAIR has been mentioned as an unindicted co-conspirator, however has not been charged with anything, in a trial against Holy Land Foundation, which has not concluded nor has a verdit been reached"

to

Holy Land Foundation has been convicted and CAIR is right behind them, told you so!

I'm sorry RO, but an unindicted co-conspirator in a 3 year old trial that has not concluded is not really a smoking gun. Especially since if the USAO could make a case against CAIR, they would have already, so they probably have even less information on CAIR than they do on HLF, considering they at least indicted HLF, even if they haven't managed to get a conviction yet.
Gauthier
05-06-2007, 02:22
Wow, you're right, totally missed that. The OP somehow went from

"CAIR has been mentioned as an unindicted co-conspirator, however has not been charged with anything, in a trial against Holy Land Foundation, which has not concluded nor has a verdit been reached"

to

Holy Land Foundation has been convicted and CAIR is right behind them, told you so!

I'm sorry RO, but an unindicted co-conspirator in a 3 year old trial that has not concluded is not really a smoking gun. Especially since if the USAO could make a case against CAIR, they would have already, so they probably have even less information on CAIR than they do on HLF, considering they at least indicted HLF, even if they haven't managed to get a conviction yet.

So we can conclude this whole thread has been yet another quarter-assed attempt by the Deep Kimchi Gang to publically masturbate to another |\/|05l3|\/|5 r 3b1l thread.

Case dismissed!
Nodinia
05-06-2007, 08:41
So we can conclude this whole thread has been yet another quarter-assed attempt by the Deep Kimchi Gang to publically masturbate to another |\/|05l3|\/|5 r 3b1l thread.

Case dismissed!

Seeing as 'Remote Observer' deserted the thread early on, yep. At least the trolls make a go of it.
Andaras Prime
05-06-2007, 09:09
Must Exterminate All Muslims!!!!