• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Muslim 'radicalization' hearing a success, say Rep. Peter King, Republicans

Serenity said:
Robert Pape wrote an excellent book called 'Dying to Win' where he documents actual cases of suicide bombers. he talks about the fact that they often experienced a traumatic event in their lives, be it a family member who was killed, etc. most cases involve them living under foreign military occupation, and them eventually doing it for political reasons - not religious.

it's a good read regardless if you agree with the conclusion or not. you can at least take the presented facts and make up your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Robert Pape was actually one of my professors in college at the University of Chicago. His class 'Strategy' is one of the most popular on campus for people of all majors. I had to read his book for class. The best thing about Pape is that he openly encourages people to disagree because is so confident in his research.

On our final exam, he gave us extra credit if we disagreed with him. He's not only a good/reliable academic; he's a stand up guy.
 
theplaydrive said:
Robert Pape was actually one of my professors in college at the University of Chicago. I had to read his book for class. The best thing about Pape is that he openly encourages people to disagree because is so confident in his research.

On our final exam, he gave us extra credit if we disagreed with him. He's not only a good/reliable academic; he's a stand up guy.
Click to expand...

I've read some of his stuff for an international relations class. He seems to me to be a great academic.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I don't have a definitive answer, but do you think that AQ would stop their attacks if the US withdrew its military forces completely from all Muslim countries? This was a poll awhile back, I think.
Click to expand...

I also don't have a definitive opinion, but I'm inclined to say yes. I think that they would still hate us and want us all to die, but I don't think that they would act on that hate. I believe that the actual presence of military, no matter how small or big, is what moves them from thought to action.

My general opinion on our foreign policy strategy is that we should significantly reduce, if not eliminate, our troops in the region. Al-Qaeda has given three main reasons for attacking us: 1) Occupation 2) Hatred of American values 3) Islam . We can't change the last to, but we can change the first one. I don't see why we shouldn't give it a try.

What about you?
 
Degreez said:
10% would be 150,000,000 Muslims, not 1,500,000. Your estimate is not even supported by anything.
Click to expand...

Oh, my math is off...So you think your number is better? Tell me, how many muslims in the world do you think are radicalized right now?


j-mac
 
theplaydrive said:
I also don't have a definitive opinion, but I'm inclined to say yes. I think that they would still hate us and want us all to die, but I don't think that they would act on that hate. I believe that the actual presence of military, no matter how small or big, is what moves them from thought to action.

My general opinion on our foreign policy strategy is that we should significantly reduce, if not eliminate, our troops in the region. Al-Qaeda has given three main reasons for attacking us: 1) Occupation 2) Hatred of American values 3) Islam . We can't change the last to, but we can change the first one. I don't see why we shouldn't give it a try.

What about you?
Click to expand...

I really don't know one way or the other. I think when you're motivated by something as irrational as the politics of hatred, it's hard to say what will make that group or individual willing to stop. I mean for all the terrorist attacks that have been committed by Al-Qaeda going back to the 90s, it really hasn't come close to reaching its own objective and as a group, AQ hasn't done itself any favors and it's not any closer to achieving it's stated goals. I think all the talk about bleeding America of it's manpower and financial resources is a post-facto objective that they came up with, that has little to do with their real goals. I don't think we're doing ourselves any favors with overseas involvement especially in Iraq, but for all their atrocious actions AQ itself isn't really in a better place either.

The same things I just said about Al-Qaeda could be said about other radical Islamic terror groups as well.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Why is looking glass a bigot? Or, is that really the only argument you have to defend Islamofacists with?
Click to expand...

Let's start with the fact that even Looking Glass admits he is a bigot, which you may or may not know is someone that applies the attributes of a small subset of a group to the entire group. Suggesting that all Muslims are anything but Muslims is quintessential bigotry.

BTW, Islamofacists is a vague term invented by our friends a Fox. Thanks for displaying your gullibility.
 
Last edited:
Barbbtx said:
:agree I watched the whole thing too>
Click to expand...

Good, then tell us how many FBI agents were called to testify.

How many Homeland Security reps were called?

How many national security experts on islamic extremists??

0

It was a joke -- political grandstanding. -- It achieves the opposite what it desires.
 
hazlnut said:
Good, then tell us how many FBI agents were called to testify.

How many Homeland Security reps were called?

How many national security experts on islamic extremists??

0

It was a joke -- political grandstanding. -- It achieves the opposite what it desires.
Click to expand...

That’s based on the assumption that these politicians are being forthright with their desires. If they were merely looking to tap into the wellspring of fear and hatred of Muslims and turn it into political capital, they could have done a much worse job.
 
upsideguy said:
Let's start with the fact that even Looking Glass admits he is a bigot, which you may or may not know is someone that applies the attributes of a small subset of a group to the entire group. Suggesting that all Muslims are anything but Muslims is quintessential bigotry.

BTW, Islamofacists is a vague term invented by our friends a Fox. Thanks for displaying your gullibility.
Click to expand...

Wow! That would make every Libbo in the world a bigot.
 
Guy Incognito said:
These hearings are a tremendous success for all the racists, xenophobes and bigots in this country. The rest of us should not be celebrating.
Click to expand...

Liberals are great at at passing out hate name calling and just being wrong. Had this hearing been Muslims it might have been for bigots, but racist? I think not.

Muslim is not a race brainiac. and Radical declares what the hearing was about.

Radicals which make their version of Muslim into a cult not a religion.

Liberals need a better education, but it would not help because liberals like to go on attack mode and to help with the truth or facts.
 
hazlnut said:
Good, then tell us how many FBI agents were called to testify.

How many Homeland Security reps were called?

How many national security experts on islamic extremists??

0

It was a joke -- political grandstanding. -- It achieves the opposite what it desires.
Click to expand...

It seemed to me, these hearings weren't really about homeland security or the FBI. It was about learning about the hows and whys of the radicalization of our American youth. It was about prevention. It wasn't about catching and arresting radicals.
As I said earlier I came away with a different view of moderate American Muslims. They are as much victims of the radicals, if not more than other Americans. They need our support to stop it.
I don't know what Homeland Security or the FBI could have had to offer to these hearings. Also, that seems to me it would have just been more ammo for the media to attack King.
 
Marshabar said:
Muslim 'radicalization' hearing a success, say Rep. Peter King, Republicans - latimes.com

Well I hope this article meets the guidelines. I'm not sure why a bonafide newspaper feels the need to wrap the word radicalization in quotation marks. :roll:

I watched the whole hearing and found it very enlightening. The Democrats to a man made fools of themselves as far as I'm concerned. They are complete slaves to the idiocy of political correctness. I am convinced that if they were captured and tortured by an "Islamist" as they are now calling Islamofascist jihadis they would apologize for not holding still.

NOTE: Moderator edit to reduce quoted text to what is permissible under Breaking News/Fair Use guidelines.
Click to expand...


IMO, it was a pointless conference. There is no need to have a talk about Islamic extremism in the US, but I do agree that the Muslim community should go and work to combat stereotypes and general ignorance.
 
Barbbtx said:
It seemed to me, these hearings weren't really about homeland security or the FBI. It was about learning about the hows and whys of the radicalization of our American youth.
Click to expand...

The radicalization of youth has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with violence-prone people.
 
Barbbtx said:
I don't know what Homeland Security or the FBI could have had to offer to these hearings.
Click to expand...

Um. Facts about which groups present a legitimate domestic threat.

Do you actually think that any semi-radical mosque on American soil is not bugged and monitored 24/7?? Think about it.
 
So what's really the problem? Everybody agrees radicalism in the name of Islam is bad. The fight is between people who believe Muslims and Islam in general are comparable to the KKK or Nazis on one side, and those who believe such a kind of broad-brushing is as much a problem as radical islam, if not more, on the other.

My two cents: The people who do it may have honorable intentions (rejection of radicalism), but broad-brush condemnation of Islam as radical in general smells like outgroup homogeneity bias. Out-group homogeneity bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Personally, I know quite a few Muslims, and none of them is radical.

Justabubba exemplified that by pointing to a hypothetical situation when Christians in general are blamed for terrorist acts committed in the name of their religion. When a Christian becomes radical, people would hardly condemn Christianity in a broad-brush manner for these deeds. That's because Christianity is the dominant religion in our societies and everybody immediately understands how absurd such broad-brushing is. Islam is alien enough for many not to enjoy this benefit.

But then, there is much evidence suggesting radical attitudes are indeed more common among Muslims, than they are among Christians. Still I don't believe discriminating Muslims in general is helpful when it comes to addressing and solving the problems with radicals that actually exist. Also, radicals among Muslims are bad enough, and indiscriminate condemnation of Muslims is another, similar type of radicalism that's just as bad. It's bad enough when there are radical Muslim suicide bombers, we don't need to add radical islamophobes setting mosques on fire.
 
hazlnut said:
1) Perhaps you're not aware what a gaping hypocrite Peter King is. He vocally supported the IRA.

2) Perhaps if Peter King and other fringe-righties like yourself were ever harassed by a paranoid overzealous peace officer -- cavity searched by a dimwitted Barney Fife, you would see how damaging blatant fear-mongering is.

3) Your belief that people are actually captured and tortured in the U.S. shows how far removed from reality you are.
Click to expand...



Wow.... I don't know what to say to that. At least you have the right screen name.
 
LookingGlass said:
Any Muslim's opinion of the United States is irrelevant. I am so tired of everyone tiptoeing around these kooks.
Click to expand...

Is there a dislike button?

So because religious extremists did something terrible, all people of a similar religion to them are "kooks"?

This is an incredibly moronic and closed-minded argument.

I guess because of the crusades, inquisition, and various extremist organizations (WBC the most recent example) all Christians are religious kooks as well? What about Shintos, they bombed pearl harbor, that religion is obviously entirely populated by nut-jobs, right?

This sort of viewpoint is the reason that organizations like Al Qaeda exist.
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
But then, there is much evidence suggesting radical attitudes are indeed more common among Muslims, than they are among Christians. Still I don't believe discriminating Muslims in general is helpful when it comes to addressing and solving the problems with radicals that actually exist. Also, radicals among Muslims are bad enough, and indiscriminate condemnation of Muslims is another, similar type of radicalism that's just as bad. It's bad enough when there are radical Muslim suicide bombers, we don't need to add radical islamophobes setting mosques on fire.
Click to expand...

That's just it, those claiming such hearings are islamaphobe discrimination are not acknowledging that evidence and there is NO way to prevent radicals from existing. Such hearings do not increase the level of radicals nor does it reduce the levels but to ignore such hearings and to get Muslims to discuss such radicalization and get their views on it seems prudent. If there is enough of that same evidence that shows other religions or groups also being radicalized, hearings should be held on them too if nothing else, for completeness. Too many are using these hearings as a political football with massive appeals to emotion instead of dealing with the facts.
 
Laila said:
The bastard who basically publicly supported terrorism against the British has the cheek to turn on Muslims when it is Americans on the other end?

**** him.

Feel nothing but sympathy for American Muslims. How much more marginalization will they get? If they reach the height of how the French do it. I'll be reluctantly impressed.
Click to expand...

Do you live here? You don't, do you?
 
Ockham said:
That's just it, those claiming such hearings are islamaphobe discrimination are not acknowledging that evidence and there is NO way to prevent radicals from existing. Such hearings do not increase the level of radicals nor does it reduce the levels but to ignore such hearings and to get Muslims to discuss such radicalization and get their views on it seems prudent. If there is enough of that same evidence that shows other religions or groups also being radicalized, hearings should be held on them too if nothing else, for completeness. Too many are using these hearings as a political football with massive appeals to emotion instead of dealing with the facts.
Click to expand...

I have not followed this hearing well enough to know if that's the case, but while you are probably right it doesn't increase or decrease the number of radicals, the problem some apparently have with it is their sorrow it might fuel the sentiments of those who indiscriminately blame Muslims in general, and thus will result in more discrimination and ostracism of Muslims, including those who aren't radical.

Personally, I believe we should be aware of our responsibility in these regards when we debate the problem. We should be careful to avoid broad-brush generalizations and make sure we don't fuel sentiments that will result in the discrimination of non-radical Muslims. No idea if this hearing was executed in a sufficiently responsible manner.
 
TheBook said:
Is there a dislike button?

So because religious extremists did something terrible, all people of a similar religion to them are "kooks"?

This is an incredibly moronic and closed-minded argument.

I guess because of the crusades, inquisition, and various extremist organizations (WBC the most recent example) all Christians are religious kooks as well? What about Shintos, they bombed pearl harbor, that religion is obviously entirely populated by nut-jobs, right?

This sort of viewpoint is the reason that organizations like Al Qaeda exist.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion. You are entitled to yours, as am I. While I am sure your opinion is highly relevant to you, your opinion is irrelevant to me. I do not sanction any religion. My point was of all organized religions Muslims are the kookiest. I would call myself an atheist, but all that means in the U.S. currently is anti-Christian.
 
If more non-radical Muslims took an active interest in exposing radical Muslims, then none of this would be neccessary.

Let's face it, the folks that are going to spot radical Muslims first, are other Muslims. Obviously, radicalization within the Muslim community is a problem. Just as obviously, non-radical Muslims aren't stepping up to deal with it.

Any so-called non-radical Muslim that is offended, or becomes radicalized because of these hearings, or some kind of discrimination probably agreed more with the radicals, than not, to begin with.
 
apdst said:
If more non-radical Muslims took an active interest in exposing radical Muslims, then none of this would be neccessary.

Let's face it, the folks that are going to spot radical Muslims first, are other Muslims. Obviously, radicalization within the Muslim community is a problem. Just as obviously, non-radical Muslims aren't stepping up to deal with it.

Any so-called non-radical Muslim that is offended, or becomes radicalized because of these hearings, or some kind of discrimination probably agreed more with the radicals, than not, to begin with.
Click to expand...

Oh how little you know...

You only know what the media tells you. Not the reality.

As my best friends mother who was a Koran Scholar said "This Bin Laden, he is bull****!".
 
apdst said:
If more non-radical Muslims took an active interest in exposing radical Muslims, then none of this would be neccessary.
Click to expand...

Agreed wholeheartedly, but what's missing is something to bring Mulsim communities together - one Imam at one mosque may guide his congregration to condemn such things, the mosque next door ignores it, and the other one up town may claim westerners are a pox. There's no cohesiveness ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom