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

Barbbtx · Mar 15, 2011

Grant said:
Speaking of Jewish terrorists.

Dead Jews Is No News - By Mark Steyn - The Corner - National Review Online

Beck covered it yesterday, but until your post I hadn't heard anything else about it.

And out in the wider world there was a marked reluctance to cover the story.
And, if not exactly shocking, that was a useful reminder of how things have changed even in a few years. On 9/11, footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets and handing out candy turned up on the world’s TV screens, and that rancid old queen Arafat immediately went into damage-control mode and hastily arranged for himself to be filmed giving blood. This time round there was no need for damage-control, because there was no damage: The western media simply averted their eyes from their Palestinian house pets’ unfortunate effusions. The Israeli Government released raw footage from the murders, but YouTube yanked the video within two hours. The hip new “social media” are developing almost as exquisitely refined a sense of discretion as the old Social Register.

Dead Jews Is No News - By Mark Steyn - The Corner - National Review Online

justabubba · Mar 15, 2011

Ockham said:
Clearly your changing the subject. You asked Vance to provide information of a similar hearing - I stepped in and provided that information. There was a need at the time, congressional meetings were held, laws were passed, and you were proven wrong.

no.clearly, you are unable to rebut the points i made

i distinguished between a hearing about the KKK's terrorism and a hearing about moslems who have done nothing wrong. you failed to apprehend the distinction. no surprise [/sarcasm]

Now, let's get back to the issue at hand...

please. let's do

Wrong. I addressed this in Post #89 as to what this hearing was about, and King identified it up front in the first 20 seconds of the hearing. If you wish to continue to provide misinformation about the purpose and goal of the congressional meeting, and cannot honestly address why it was held, I'll continue to correct you.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-peter-king-republicans-3.html#post1059343066

any observer who watched the hearings knows what they were actually about, no matter how much that IRA terrorist supporting congressman pretends otherwise. it was a public demonization of a religion. as with many reich wing matters, one must examine the real actions instead of the misleading descriptive words. the words are only there to deceive the gullible who choose not to examine the actions

The injection of race is irrelevant and ad hominem. Christians are not and have not been strapping bombs on their backs and killing tens of thousands of people - your comparison doesn't have a direct equivilent, and therefore is a red herring.

i understand your opposition to my comparison, where it is noteworthy that white Christians - those not affiliated with white supremacists - were not similarly summoned to appear before the congress to explain why members of their Christian religion engage in racial terrorism
that direct comparison undermines your argument. continue to whine about it as that tells me you are pissed off at losing the debate

Congress has chosen to publicly investigate a very real problem that some, some, are ignoring for political reasons. Gotta keep those minorities votin' for the Democrats, right?

the congress should be investigating terrorism
but it instead diverts its time and resources to pursue a divisive, partisan, destructive attack on innocent members of the islamic faith
congress has no reason to summon before it innocent practitioners of the islamic religion to have them explain why they tolerate those who practice the same faith. that is like asking you why you tolerate the pedophiles who practice your religious beliefs, despite your not having any knowledge of those perverts or their actions

Meh. Unless one can look at facts honestly and address them, it's all just theater.

sadly, osama bin forgotten is the George Washington of the disenfranchised moslem world. when, by our nation's actions, we give credibility to his pronouncements against us, his fatwas, we assist his ability to recruit more prospective terrorists. if this were only theatre

Grant · Mar 15, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Islam is not the primary factor in suicide terrorism because the group with most suicide attacks is not Muslim. Islam is the primary factor why Americans are aware of suicide terrorism because of 9/11.

So who has committed the most terrorism against the British people, American people, Australian people, Iraqi people, Afghanistan people, Pakistani people and the Indian people? The Tamil Tigers or Muslims?

Answer that and perhaps we can pit this to rest.

It's less about me being 'interested in what's happening'. It's the fact that I've studied it and I know what's happening and have read that entire Wikipedia page in addition to the numerous books and articles I have read on the subject.

And on that page you discovered it was all about land?

Slartibartfast · Mar 15, 2011

Grant said:
So who has committed the most terrorism against the British people, American people, Australian people, Iraqi people, Afghanistan people, Pakistani people and the Indian people? The Tamil Tigers or Muslims?

My uncle bob, hes a real jerk.

Ockham · Mar 15, 2011

justabubba said:
no.clearly, you are unable to rebut the points i made

i distinguished between a hearing about the KKK's terrorism and a hearing about moslems who have done nothing wrong. you failed to apprehend the distinction. no surprise [/sarcasm]

You don't have to be sarcastic, because your comparison wasn't valid, which is why I didn't bother with it and explained why it was invalid. If it was valid, I'd be happy to rebutt it.

justabubba said:
any observer who watched the hearings knows what they were actually about, no matter how much that IRA terrorist supporting congressman pretends otherwise.

The IRA was not part of the hearings and I was one of the "any observers" and did not see your accusation fulfilled.

justabubba said:
it was a public demonization of a religion. as with many reich wing matters, one must examine the real actions instead of the misleading descriptive words. the words are only there to deceive the gullible who choose not to examine the actions

Bored already. Take your ideological political nonsense elsewhere. Like I said, you cannot honestly address the issue and would rather stick your fingers in your ears and scream. :shrug:

justabubba said:
i understand your opposition to my comparison, where it is noteworthy that white Christians - those not affiliated with white supremacists - were not similarly summoned to appear before the congress to explain why members of their Christian religion engage in racial terrorism
that direct comparison undermines your argument. continue to whine about it as that tells me you are pissed off at losing the debate

White, green, blue... all irrelevant. The comparison is invalid... please provide proof of suicide bomber Christians killing thousands over the past 30 years. When you don't address this... try, just try to realizing how stupid your alleged comparison is.

justabubba said:
the congress should be investigating terrorism
but it instead diverts its time and resources to pursue a divisive, partisan, destructive attack on innocent members of the islamic faith

Partisan? LOL. Pot meet kettle... and pretty rich coming from you on this subject in this thread.

justabubba said:
congress has no reason to summon before it innocent practitioners of the islamic religion to have them explain why they tolerate those who practice the same faith. that is like asking you why you tolerate the pedophiles who practice your religious beliefs, despite your not having any knowledge of those perverts or their actions

Congress can call hearings about whatever they feel is reasonable - and this was reasonable given the past 30 years.

justabubba said:
sadly, osama bin forgotten is the George Washington of the disenfranchised moslem world. when, by our nation's actions, we give credibility to his pronouncements against us, his fatwas, we assist his ability to recruit more prospective terrorists. if this were only theatre

Not sure what this means - it probably means nothing like most of your alleged points on this subject. Carry on your partisan political nonsense ... power to the people brotha! [/sarcasm]

Grant · Mar 15, 2011

Barbbtx said:
Beck covered it yesterday, but until your post I hadn't heard anything else about it.

Dead Jews Is No News - By Mark Steyn - The Corner - National Review Online

And you're unlikely to.

There is a strong movement, as you can see on this thread alone, that Islamic terrorism is not a real problem, that the Jews and Tamil Tigers are much worse. Thus anything that doesn't fall into this scenario is censored or manipulated in such a way that the truth is obscured.

We know what happened to these Jewish people is true but we have to discover it in oblique ways, and then try to trace back to various sources to see what actually happened.

I don't watch Beck much but if he claimed there was a cover-up about this he was spot on. And we can only imagine how many others there might have been.

Grant · Mar 15, 2011

megaprogman said:
My uncle bob, hes a real jerk.

You share his DNA it seems.

ThePlayDrive · Mar 15, 2011

Grant said:
And you're unlikely to.

There is a strong movement, as you can see on this thread alone, that Islamic terrorism is not a real problem, that the Jews and Tamil Tigers are much worse. Thus anything that doesn't fall into this scenario is censored or manipulated in such a way that the truth is obscured.

We know what happened to these Jewish people is true but we have to discover it in oblique ways, and then try to trace back to various sources to see what actually happened.

I don't watch Beck much but if he claimed there was a cover-up about this he was spot on. And we can only imagine how many others there might have been.

Nobody argued this Grant. We have all said that we think terrorism is a problem. Our arguments have been about what caused this problem. You can't rationalize being wrong by attributing arguments to people that they never made.

Grant · Mar 15, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Nobody argued this Grant. We have all said that we think terrorism is a problem. Our arguments have been about what caused this problem. You can't rationalize being wrong by attributing arguments to people that they never made.

I understand what you believe the problem to be. You said so.

Here it is.

What you are failing to understand or acknowledge, however, is that Muslim terrorists do not attack because of Islam, they attack because of political motivations (i.e. they want the U.S. to get the **** off of their territory).

It is Muslim held territory, though its location is ujmentioned, but Islam is not involved.

This is so hugely irrational it makes no sense whatsoever. I can only guess that you don't realize Muslims have a connection to Islam.

ThePlayDrive · Mar 15, 2011

Grant said:
I understand what you believe the problem to be. You said so.

Here it is.

It is Muslim held territory, though its location is ujmentioned, but Islam is not involved.

This is so hugely irrational it makes no sense whatsoever. I can only guess that you don't realize Muslims have a connection to Islam.

This is my argument:

Muslim terrorists do not attack because of Islam, they attack because of political motivations (i.e. they want the U.S. to get the **** off of their territory)

This is the CIA's argument:

Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden, states that terrorist attacks-specifically Al Qaeda attacks on America are not motivated by a religiously-inspired hatred of American culture or religion, but by the belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East, condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are."

This is Pape's argument (the person who as done the most comprehensive study of suicide terrorism):

Terrorists utilizing suicide attacks are driven not by Islamism but by "a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland."[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Motivations_and_Islamic_terrorism

No one has argued that Islam is not 'involved'. Everyone has argued that Islam is not the cause.

MKULTRABOY · Mar 15, 2011

coolpoints for playdrive.

ThePlayDrive · Mar 15, 2011

SE102 said:
coolpoints for playdrive.

Thanks SE102.

Grant · Mar 15, 2011

theplaydrive said:
This is my argument:

This is the CIA's argument:

This is Pape's argument (the person who as done the most comprehensive study of suicide terrorism):

Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one has argued that Islam is not 'involved'. Everyone has argued that Islam is not the cause.

Why do you say "everyone" when you are only selecting one name and one excuse given for Islamic terrorism? You are either doing this deliberately or simply aren't familiar with the problem or are new to the debate. I suspect the latter.

If you read down on the same page you will see several causes, none of which involve territory.

Here's one.

"* A belief that Muslims have deviated from true Islam and must return to “pure Islam” as originally practiced during the time of the Prophet.
* The path to “pure Islam” is only through a literal and strict interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith, along with implementation of the Prophet’s commands.
* Muslims should interpret the original sources individually without being bound to follow the interpretations of Islamic scholars.
* That any interpretation of the Quran from a historical, contextual perspective is a corruption, and that the majority of Islamic history and the classical jurisprudential tradition is mere sophistry".

There are equally strong arguments for alienation, self-fulfillment, Jihadism, and so on. But all involve Muslims and Islam.

ThePlayDrive · Mar 15, 2011

Grant said:
Why do you say "everyone" when you are only selecting one name and one excuse given for Islamic terrorism? You are either doing this deliberately or simply aren't familiar with the problem or are new to the debate. I suspect the latter.

If you read down on the same page you will see several causes, none of which involve territory.

Here's one.

"* A belief that Muslims have deviated from true Islam and must return to “pure Islam” as originally practiced during the time of the Prophet.
* The path to “pure Islam” is only through a literal and strict interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith, along with implementation of the Prophet’s commands.
* Muslims should interpret the original sources individually without being bound to follow the interpretations of Islamic scholars.
* That any interpretation of the Quran from a historical, contextual perspective is a corruption, and that the majority of Islamic history and the classical jurisprudential tradition is mere sophistry".

There are equally strong arguments for alienation, self-fulfillment, Jihadism, and so on. But all involve Muslims and Islam.

There are always different opinions on everything, but no expert in suicide terrorism has to agree with them. I'm done.

j-mac · Mar 15, 2011

theplaydrive said:
This is my argument:

This is the CIA's argument:

This is Pape's argument (the person who as done the most comprehensive study of suicide terrorism):

Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one has argued that Islam is not 'involved'. Everyone has argued that Islam is not the cause.

First off Scheuer no longer works for the CIA, and as of late is singing a different tune. Especially where Amhadinjihad or bin Laden are involved.

Second, Pape although not a self professed liberal, sits in the ivory tower of UofChicago and caters to a who's who of liberals. Not only professionally but in writing as well. That you would attempt to use the well worn liberal tactic of the unassailable individual to make your argument for his hypothesis only tells me that something is seriously wrong with it.

Consider an OpEd that Pape wrote for the NYTimes last year on Chechen women...He used the same arguments you are trying here and was smacked down in a rebuttal, here is a snippet of that retort.

There are, to put it mildly, a lot of problems with Robert Pape’s op-ed. As his colleagues have already pointed out (see American Political Science Review, Volume 102, Issue 02, May 2008, pp 269-273), he only samples suicide attacks in his research, making it impossible to assess the motivations of wider, mixed-tactics terrorist campaigns. (For instance, Pape’s calculus would ignore the first of yesterday’s two bombings in Dagestan, on the grounds that the first attack involved a remote car bomb – not a suicide explosion.) Even if Pape is correct that the individuals who strap themselves to bombs indeed operate under non-religious imperatives, we can hardly conclude that the support networks enabling these attacks would be possible without the role of religious extremism.

More than anything, reading “What Makes Chechen Women So Dangerous?” demonstrates the author’s weak grasp of Russian and Chechen history.

Response to Robert Pape's NYT Op-Ed « A Good Treaty

this points to some flawed methodology in Pape's theories.

The fact that today's terror attacks around the world is nearly 100% driven by Islam not only as a religious ideology, but Islam as a political tool as well, shows me further that this PoliSci prof is far too narrow in his attempt to blame his own country like any good dhimmi should.

j-mac

VanceMack · Mar 15, 2011

justabubba said:
but i have never seen the congress convene a hearing of white citizens who do not practice supremacy hate and chastise them for allowing their fellow white citizens to engage in such abhorrent practices
i invite you to prove me wrong

i must confess i have no idea what you are describing here ... but i would want to. please elaborate for my benefit

if you will point me to a congressional hearing where the italian community - represented by those who were not associated with the mob - was called to task for allowing organized crime to be disproportionately present within that italian culture, then you would have a valid point. i will await your showing us evidence that such a congressional hearing was conducted

if you initiated a congressional hearing, bringing in those citizens of italian heritage who are not involved with the cosa nostra, and criticized the italian American people for allowing the mafia to operate unhindered within that italian American community, my prediction is you would not see much italian American support for such an inquisition

we would have a similar outcry if the congress held a public hearing, bringing in catholics who do not bomb abortion clinics, and then reprimand them for their failure to prevent anti-abortion terrorists from being among the practitioners of the catholic faith

please show us where the muslims say they will assume responsibility for policing the practitioners of the islamic faith to assure no terrorists will be found within their ranks
you foolishly pretend that our government has been requested by muslims to turn over protecting our nation from terrorists of the islamic faith to those who practice that faith
but prove me wrong, show me that is a fact instead of your wrongheaded imagination

The point is that the mob and KKK (and other white supremacy groups) have both been singled out in congressional and law enforcement efforts. Today, radical Islam...not all of Islam is being investigated. To deny that radicals are NOT actively recruiting and using Islam as a tool for their recruitment is just plain stupid. To pretend that this is an indictment of all Muslims is equally stupid. For Ellison and other members of the Muslim community to decry this hearing on the recruitment of terrorists through extremism is stupid. And for Muslims to claim hearings like these are wrong and that the fforts to call out extremists should come from Muslims themselves...well...hey..we have a winner...common ground. The problem is...they arent DOING it.

justabubba · Mar 15, 2011

VanceMack said:
The point is that the mob and KKK (and other white supremacy groups) have both been singled out in congressional and law enforcement efforts. Today, radical Islam...not all of Islam is being investigated. To deny that radicals are NOT actively recruiting and using Islam as a tool for their recruitment is just plain stupid. To pretend that this is an indictment of all Muslims is equally stupid. For Ellison and other members of the Muslim community to decry this hearing on the recruitment of terrorists through extremism is stupid. And for Muslims to claim hearings like these are wrong and that the fforts to call out extremists should come from Muslims themselves...well...hey..we have a winner...common ground. The problem is...they arent DOING it.

and you still miss the point. by this stage i am believing it to be intentionally

the KKK investigation did not result in calling the innocent members of the Christian community to explain why those of their faith tolerated the presence of these cross burning Bible toting KKK terrorists who professed to be of the same faith

no investigation of the abortion bombing catholic terrorists resulted in calling the innocent members of the catholic community to explain why those of their faith tolerated the presence of these murdering, anti-abortion catholic terrorists who professed to be of the same faith

we should be investigating terrorism. we should also recognize what about our foreign policy contributes to the ability of terrorist groups to recruit those who are willing to end their own lives to attack us. the IRA terrorist supporter who hosted this congressional hearing was not interested in terrorism. he was pandering to the reich wing. bet that makes your side proud [/sarcasm]

Ockham · Mar 15, 2011

justabubba said:
and you still miss the point. by this stage i am believing it to be intentionally

We both understand... but your conclusion is all wrong... you don't have a valid point, and only you think it is valid. :shrug:

justabubba · Mar 15, 2011

Ockham said:
We both understand... but your conclusion is all wrong... you don't have a valid point, and only you think it is valid. :shrug:

well, there you have it

with all the depth of logic he was able to plumb

you still see no hypocrisy in calling the innocent muslim community to task for the terrorists who share their faith while finding it reasonable to not do the same to address the terrorists found within the Christian community or the terrorists within the catholic community

simply declare your position correct and mine wrong without offering any figment of a defense of your own stance or one which stands in opposition to mine

but then, it's not as if those of your political persuasion are inclined to base belief on things like fact and evidence, much less principle and logic

Grant · Mar 15, 2011

theplaydrive said:
There are always different opinions on everything, but no expert in suicide terrorism has to agree with them. I'm done.

They are all experts who were being quoted. You just chose the one whose opinion you preferred.

And it all had something to do with Islam.

VanceMack · Mar 15, 2011

justabubba said:
and you still miss the point. by this stage i am believing it to be intentionally

the KKK investigation did not result in calling the innocent members of the Christian community to explain why those of their faith tolerated the presence of these cross burning Bible toting KKK terrorists who professed to be of the same faith

no investigation of the abortion bombing catholic terrorists resulted in calling the innocent members of the catholic community to explain why those of their faith tolerated the presence of these murdering, anti-abortion catholic terrorists who professed to be of the same faith

we should be investigating terrorism. we should also recognize what about our foreign policy contributes to the ability of terrorist groups to recruit those who are willing to end their own lives to attack us. the IRA terrorist supporter who hosted this congressional hearing was not interested in terrorism. he was pandering to the reich wing. bet that makes your side proud [/sarcasm]

You are the one blinded by bias...which makes me wonder if you even bothered to watch ANY of the hearings or are just typically bleating on your usual bull**** and nonsense of which you know nothing about. Rep King did not indict the Muslim people...in point of fact he very clearly indicated that MANY of the gains we have made combating terrorism has come through the efforts of Muslims and that it was not an attack ON Muslims.

Nah...you are just doing that same mindless bull**** you and so many of you do...any time there is anything terrorist related you do that mindless kneejerk ohmigodIgottadefend Muslims thing. No one is attacking Muslims. No one is attacking Islam. He was identifying a salient point...that here...right here in good ol River City we got troubly and it starts with E and it ends with S and its called Extremists. EXTREMISTS ARE INDEED using perversions of the Koran and recruiting individuals. Its a problem.

VanceMack · Mar 15, 2011

"A fourth panelist, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, brought with him a Muslim member of the sherrif’s department whose job is to work with the Muslim community.

Baca also noted that he has exhorted CAIR leaders to use their positions to fight against extremism within the Muslim community.

“If I were in your position,” Baca said to the group’s leaders, “I would post admonitions in mosques, if you have the ability, that advises the attendees that come to pray to not bring in extremist points of view.”

That Baca...what an ignorant extremist...you know...for attacking Muslims.

Oh...wait...it wasnt ABOUT attacking Muslims...it was about identifying radical Islam in America.

****ing bubblehead.

Grant · Mar 15, 2011

justabubba said:
you still see no hypocrisy in calling the innocent muslim community to task for the terrorists who share their faith while finding it reasonable to not do the same to address the terrorists found within the Christian community or the terrorists within the catholic community

The "innocent muslim community" remains the "innocent muslim community". No accusations made or charges laid.

There have been reports that a great percentage of Mosques in the US were being used to promote sharia law, and other anti Western propaganda, as has been done in the UK and most everywhere else.

Why the US should be immune to such commonplace goings on has never been explained. Could you try?

VanceMack · Mar 15, 2011

Grant said:
The "innocent muslim community" remains the "innocent muslim community". No accusations made or charges laid.

There have been reports that a great percentage of Mosques in the US were being used to promote sharia law, and other anti Western propaganda, as has been done in the UK and most everywhere else.

Why the US should be immune to such commonplace goings on has never been explained. Could you try?

Of course the US isnt immune. In fact the extremists are COUNTING on useful idiots to rush to defend all things Muslim (as if All things Muslim are under attack) to ensure they can continue to do what they do unabated.

ThePlayDrive · Mar 15, 2011

j-mac said:
First off Scheuer no longer works for the CIA, and as of late is singing a different tune. Especially where Amhadinjihad or bin Laden are involved.

No.

Second, Pape although not a self professed liberal, sits in the ivory tower of UofChicago and caters to a who's who of liberals. Not only professionally but in writing as well. That you would attempt to use the well worn liberal tactic of the unassailable individual to make your argument for his hypothesis only tells me that something is seriously wrong with it.

This is just false. Pape is a Republican and Libertarian. The economics and political science departments at UChicago are FILLED with conservatives.

Consider an OpEd that Pape wrote for the NYTimes last year on Chechen women...He used the same arguments you are trying here and was smacked down in a rebuttal, here is a snippet of that retort.

this points to some flawed methodology in Pape's theories.

An article about Chechen women has nothing to do with this.

The fact that today's terror attacks around the world is nearly 100% driven by Islam not only as a religious ideology, but Islam as a political tool as well, shows me further that this PoliSci prof is far too narrow in his attempt to blame his own country like any good dhimmi should.

This is false. Find out who that seat actually belongs to and come back later.

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

Barbbtx

justabubba

long standing member

Grant

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Grant

Grant

ThePlayDrive

Grant

ThePlayDrive

MKULTRABOY

ThePlayDrive

Grant

ThePlayDrive

j-mac

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

justabubba

long standing member

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

justabubba

long standing member

Grant

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Grant

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

ThePlayDrive