Hamas-linked CAIR demands an apology from an American DA for mourning 9/11

On the day Hamas butchered Israeli civilians, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) blamed Israel; now it is demanding an apology from an American DA for mourning 9/11.

When Hamas gunmen swept into southern Israel on October 7, 2023, murdering, torturing, and kidnapping civilians, most Americans were horrified. CAIR, however, issued no words of sympathy for the victims. Instead, at 11 a.m. Eastern, CAIR’s national account on X posted:

We join @USCMO and the American Muslim community in reaffirming our support for the Palestinian people’s right to freedom and calling for an end to the Israeli occupation … which sparks the deadly violence that we see again and again, including today.

That was CAIR’s immediate reaction to a day of mass murder: not grief, but justification. It portrayed the slaughter as the predictable result of Israeli “racist oppression.” Hamas’s name never appeared.

Fast-forward to two years later. When San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow reposted a message on social media expressing sorrow over the 9/11 jihad attacks, along with criticism of New York politician Zohran Mamdani’s far-left views, CAIR denounced him. Its press release accused Dow of “weaponizing anti-Muslim bigotry” and demanded a public apology, as well as a “probe” of Dow — charges KTLA repeated almost verbatim.

The contrast could not be sharper.

• On the day Islamic terrorists murdered Israelis, CAIR’s tone was defensive and political.
• When an American prosecutor mourned the victims of Islamic terror, CAIR’s tone was accusatory and moralistic.

A Record the Media Ignores

KTLA never informed viewers that CAIR’s leadership has a long record of defending or partnering with pro-jihad and/or pro-Sharia Islamic movements. The organization works with the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) — the U.S. branch of Jamaat-e-Islami, a Pakistani movement tied to violence in Kashmir and Bangladesh — and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case. CAIR officials have publicly campaigned for Aafia Siddiqui (“Lady al-Qaeda”), and portrayed convicted terrorists as victims of prejudice.

None of that background appeared in KTLA’s coverage. Instead, CAIR’s accusation against Dow was treated as fact, while his defense was reduced to a single sentence. The station’s failure exemplifies a broader problem: local news outlets repeat CAIR’s condemnations without examining who is doing the condemning.

Hypocrisy as a Media Strategy

CAIR’s pattern is clear.

• When Islamic jihadists attack civilians, it blames “occupation” or “Islamophobia.”
• When Americans criticize Islamic ideology, it demands apologies and labels them bigots.

The result is a chilling double standard: CAIR enjoys limitless freedom to accuse others, while any criticism of CAIR itself is declared off-limits.

This imbalance reflects the unfair “rules of engagement” society now operates under. CAIR and its allies can publicly brand opponents as racists, bigots, fascists, or even complicit in genocide — charges that sympathetic media outlets often amplify without consequence. But if someone questions CAIR’s record, or says something that offends “one of their own,” the same media will rush to help CAIR denounce that person on air. These lopsided rules protect power, not fairness. They muzzle honest debate and elevate outrage into a political weapon.

CAIR does not own a copyright on the atrocity of 9/11, or on the moral vocabulary that came from it. Americans have every right to remember, grieve, and speak freely about that day without fear of being accused of bigotry. CAIR needs to be reminded — vigorously — that it does not get to control how the public interprets or discusses terrorism.

There isn’t even a CAIR chapter in San Luis Obispo.

If journalists had bothered to review CAIR’s own October 7 posts, they might have recognized the hypocrisy. A group that excused one of the worst terrorist massacres in modern times has no moral standing to lecture an elected American prosecutor about compassion or prejudice. The real story is not Dan Dow’s tweet — it’s the media’s willingness to launder CAIR’s talking points without scrutiny.