In Arabic, Awad slammed Congress for "attaching the accusation of terrorism against Saudi Arabia." Yes, seriously.
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) bill might seem like commonsense to most people. The legislation would change “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.” Therefore, American citizens would be able to sue foreign governments/officials for acts of terrorism.
Of course, this will inevitably lead to friction with some of our so-called ‘allies’ who are also state-sponsors of terrorism, like Saudi Arabia. The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) reveals how the 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[.]” Another criticism of the bill is that some lawmakers believe the U.S. could also “face lawsuits in foreign courts” – for example, because of controversial drone strikes.
These might be legitimate concerns about the legislation, 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.”
Wow. So where is all of the Islamic terrorism coming from, Awad, if not from the Islamic community? Since 9/11 TheReligionofPeace estimates that “Islamic terrorists” have committed over 29,000 fatal terror attacks – possibly a jihadist trend? In regards to 9/11, Investigative journalist Paul Sperry unveils some of the evidence pointing 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.”
“Numerous” FBI files also fingered two Saudi government employees who assisted the 9/11 hijackers as “Saudi intelligence officers,” the newly declassified documents reveal.
Though much is still redacted, they also show the 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 still wants to deny the Saudi connection to 9/11, does he want to go so far as to even deny Saudi Arabia’s global spread of Wahhabism?
If Awad wants to use the measure 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 example, an indictment against Israel’s government (Israel – holy land for Jews as well as Christians) would also be an indictment against Jews worldwide. Does Awad want to make that absurd claim when he’s talking to Western media outlets? One doesn’t think so. However, Awad has made the ridiculous claim via a tweet: “#Israel is the biggest threat to world peace and security…” We don’t see the Israeli government pumping hatred and violence of non-Jews into synagogues across the world, but we do see the Saudi government pushing radical Islam. Awad and his CAIR cronies know that when the U.S. government conducts anti-terrorism measures they will uncover jihadists.
Maybe the 9/11 bill poses a financial conflict of interest for CAIR? Of course, CAIR is hiding the fact that they receive foreign funding which is seemingly in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). In fact, some of the funding comes directly from the House of Saud. For example, in 2002 Prince Al-Walid bin Talal donated half a million dollars to CAIR. 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
So much for CAIR’s transparency. Maybe that’s why countries like the United Arab Emirates have determined that they are a terrorist organization. It’s pretty obvious that one of the reasons why CAIR opposes the 9/11 bill is that it will help expose the terrorist enterprise of Saudi Arabia as well as radical Muslim Brotherhood activities around the world. Despite President Obama’s veto of the bill, both the U.S. Senate (97-1) and the House (348-77) voted successfully in overturning it. While this helps provide a sense of justice for the victim’s families of the 9/11 attacks, it is only a small step toward defeating jihad.