Congressman Peter King (R-NY) kicks off his hearings on Islamic extremism in this country in the face of great controversy. His critics, including Keith Ellison (D-MN), the ACLU and CAIR object that this will amount to nothing more than a witch hunt against innocent American Muslims. No doubt it will shine a spotlight on the Muslim communities in America and may increase suspicion. Yet, the suspicion is already present and should be addressed and discussed. Congressman King insists that he is not trying to defame the vast majority of American Muslims or paint them with the same brush. Yet, the hearings are indeed necessary for no other reason than we cannot ignore what is staring us right in the face. We have a problem here in America, and we need to confront it and put it in the proper perspective in fairness to all.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/battle-lines-drawn-king-hearing-radical-islam/
On 9-11, 19 men, all from the Middle East, men who should not have been in this country to begin with, took 3,000 lives. Since then, several smaller attacks have been carried out or thwarted. Many of these attacks or would- be attacks have been carried out by home-grown terrorists. They share one common characteristic; they were all perpetrated by Muslims. Does that mean all American Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists? No-far from it. Yet, we have to face the facts. Some are.
From Ft Hood to the Underwear Bomber to the Times Square Bomber to the Shoe Bomber to Anwar al Awlaki to the Ft Dix conspiracy and on and on, Muslims have been involved in one plot after another to carry out mass murder in the US. The FBI deserves credit for having foiled so many would-be acts of terror.
Yet, we all know that another 9-11 is likely and that smaller acts of terror are a certainty. And when they happen, they will be carried out by Muslims.
In addition, we also know that many mosques in the US are breeding grounds for would-be terrorists. Many imams are giving sermons (or outside speeches) laced with hate against this country, its freedoms, its traditions, and non-Muslims. Examples? How about the so-called Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, now in prison on terror conspiracy charges? How about Awlaki himself? How about Luqman Ameen Abdullah in Detroit, killed in a shootout with the FBI? How about folks like Imam Alim Musa, who praises Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran while openly telling audiences that Islam will take down and take over America? How about Mohammed al-Asi, the imam who said several years ago at UC-Irvine that "you can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew"?
What about some of these organizations like CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, MPAC and others, not only connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, but in the case of some, named as "un-indicted co-conspirators" in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas? (CAIR has now been removed from that list by judicial order.) What connections, if any, do they have with US-recognized terror groups in the Middle East, such as Hamas or Hezbollah?
And isn't it time that someone was called under oath to answer questions about what connections these Muslim Student Associations have with radical groups-including the Muslim Brotherhood?
No reasonable person wants to see these hearings turn into an indictment of all American Muslims. I sure don't. If anything, King has caved into opposition demands to exclude certain witnesses like Steven Emerson, who could spell it all out chapter and verse for the committee. King says he wants to concentrate on Muslim witnesses. It is good that he will call Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. That should encourage other moderate Muslims of good will to come out of the shadows and tell the committee of their own concerns and fears.
Yes, fears of what they can expect if they speak out against the radicals.
I would hope that the leaders of CAIR, ISNA, MPAC and other so-called "moderate" organizations will also be called-not just to give their prepared statements, but answer hard questions under oath. For example, how about Nihad Awad, the head of CAIR? He could be asked about how exactly CAIR was formed back in 1994 and the involvement and connections with the Muslim Brotherhood. How about the obvious radicals, such as the Islamic Thinkers Society and Shariah4America? Let them tell the American people publicly what their goals are.
Make no mistake; there is an organized effort going on to radicalize Muslim youth in America. It involves certain mosques, certain religious leaders and certain organizations that portray themselves as moderate. Much of what is going on takes place on university campuses. My biggest fear is that due to political correctness, the King hearings will not even scratch the surface of what is going on.
It would not be fair to say that all or even most American Muslims represent a 5th column in this country. But a 5th column is out there. We want American Muslims of good will to join with us in rooting it out. Some have. Some of the would-be attacks have indeed been thwarted when Muslims tipped off the FBI. That is highly commendable. However, more of that is needed. It is not helpful when certain organizations actively discourage their followers from cooperating with the police.
The King hearings are needed, and if they do their job, can be highly effective. Peter King is no Joe McCarthy, but if the committee shies away from certain areas or refuses to pin down witnesses under oath, then they will be a failure. The stakes are simply too high. What are those stakes?
Hundreds, if not thousands of American lives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Wow, where do I even start with this garbage?
"They share one common characteristic; they were all perpetrated by Muslims."
This is just blatantly false. Just off the top of my head, how about the crazy senior citizen neo-Nazi attack on the Holocaust memorial museum? That alone proves that your statement is false. Yet there are plenty of other instances, some that have made it on the news, some that haven't. How about the attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords???
"Yet, we all know that another 9-11 is likely and that smaller acts of terror are a certainty. And when they happen, they will be carried out by Muslims."
Complete absurdity. Note how you've decided who the perpetrators of certain crimes will be before the crimes are even committed??? If that doesn't indicate a bigoted mindset, I don't know what does.
Anyways, those are to the two most striking examples of your wrong-headedness in this silly piece of writing.
Glad to see the Republican-controlled House is really getting down to tackling the important issues facing this country. The economy? What economy?
Oh this is just rich:
“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”
Apparently Mr. King doesn't have a problem with all terrorists, just Muslim ones.
King himself has a record of supporting terrorism - by the Irish Republican Army. I don't mind that. Lot's of Irish Americans have supported the IRA. The British record in Ireland, although quite attenuated the last fifty years or so, is atrocious. Americans love a good liberation movement, having been through one ourselves 1776-1814.
The real question is whether King is going to focus on Islamic terrorism, or terrorism committed in the name of Islam. There is a difference. It is a difference Gary Fouse sometimes recognizes in words, but not always in the political actions he tends to endorse.
American should be making better use of Keith Ellison's position in the House to advance our image in the Muslim world. He was elected in a district with a Christian majority, in fact, with more Jewish voters than Muslim voters. That can happen in America. How many Muslim-majority middle eastern districts elect Christians? Or Jews? How many Shia majority districts elect Sunnis? Or Sufis?
Anonymous,
Where do I start with your garbage? I am surprised you didn't include Timothy McVeigh. How about Charles Manson?
What you do is take a couple of examples of nut cases going off who were not Muslim and dismiss the elephant in the room. I have given just some of the myriad attacks or would-be attacks that have one common thread-they were done in the name if Islam. Shall we take our little exercise overseas to places like London, Madrid, Mumbai, Egypt, Pakistan etc etc.?
I try to be fair and responsible and point out that the vast majority of Muslims are innocent-yet, to you it seems that we cannot discuss the phenomena of terror, hate and violence that is going on world-wide in the name of Islam.
So tell me, Anonymous, what should we do or not do here in the US-what is your solution?
BTW- Jack the Ripper wasn't a Muslim either (I think).
Here's a fresh example of another supposedly non-existant non-Muslim terrorist.
Anonymous,
Don't forget Eric Rudolf, who bombed the Olympics in Atlanta.
Don't forget the Texas Tower killer back in the 60s (Univ of Texas)
Anonymous,
Here is some statistics you may like to choke on.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2659/islamists-dominate-doj-list-of-terror-prosecutions
Of course, those numbers do not include the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Muslims always, always, claim they are the victims. They made a big issue about backlash against Muslims after 9/11. In fact none occurred.
Miggie, you are either an idiot or a liar. While it's true that hate crimes against Muslims aren't as bad as some have made it out to be, this statement really takes the cake in the All-time Stupid Miggie Comments Awards. You're so full of crap that I can smell it from here.
"Despite the constant drumbeat of incitement from those extremists purporting to represent the interests of American Muslims, anti-Islamic hate crimes remain rare occurrences. The idea that anti-Muslim bigotry is a dominant theme in American society or that violent haters have disproportionately victimized believers in Islam is simply without foundation. And far from giving sanction to such bigotry, the hallmark of American discourse since 9/11 has been a conscious effort to disassociate Islam from the war being waged against the West by Islamist terrorists. The new statistics provide fresh proof that the claim of an anti-Muslim backlash is unfounded."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/11/22/fbi-hate-crime-stats-again-debunk-myth-of-anti-muslim-backlash/
The latest FBI hate crime data should dispell once and for all the myth created and perpetuated by the mainstream media and their allies on the Left - that American Muslims have been subjected to a backlash in which they have been subjected to discrimination and hate crimes:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2010/11/re_fbi_hate_cri.php
In fact, in the immediate aftermath of each of the dozen attacks by Muslim Americans since 9-11, the conversation has been dominated by predictions of inevitable violence toward Muslims by bigoted Americans unable to control their rage. And each time a backlash has been virtually nonexistent. Our journalistic and political elites have become terrorism's unwitting domestic enablers, perceiving religion-based violence where there is none, while ignoring it where it is widespread and intensifying
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/372nmbdt.asp
Facts are stubborn things, you ignoramus.
.
What a coincidence, another murder yells, "God is the Greatest' while killing two Americans. Amish? I don't think so. Islam is the connection between all the religious based terrorism going on the last 50 years or so.
See "Media Remain Blind To Threat Of Radical Islam"
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=565432&p=1
Look what is happening to Christians in Egypt right now.
"The fighting began when a Muslim mob attacked thousands of Christians protesting the burning last week of a church in Soul, a village just south of Cairo. The Muslims torched the church amid escalating tensions over a love affair between a Muslim woman and a Christian man."
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_17578661
Facts are stubborn things, Anonymous. You can point to a couple of non-Muslim crazies but the overwhelming evidence is that acts of terror will be carried out by Muslims as they have been in the past. And chances are they will be yelling, "Allah Akbar" when they do it. Given the history it is not an absurd prediction at all and the likelihood is that you will claim victimhood afterwards.
.
The question that needs to be answered in a probe like this is, to what end is the investigation geared?
If done in a way that makes borderline radical Muslims feel that Muslims are being persecuted and then may feel like they have to choose sides and then pick to join the small percentage of radical Muslims instead of being a moderate Muslim who would report the radicals plans if they choose to do something vile, the probe would fail in its goals.
For political reasons, I think it might be best to expand the probe to any religious radicals.
I admit I haven't followed much of this story and am just shooting off an opinion here.
And I realize there is just a small percentage of Muslims who are radical. The vast majority of American Muslims are good people.
Borderline radical Muslims are the people we most want to feel comfortable to be able to report illegal things they see the radical Muslims do or plan. The have the best knowledge of what radical Muslims plans so we do not want to alienate them.
Wejomerv,
Point well taken. Keep in mind however, that there are many mosques where intolerance is being preached. Also what you will hear on university campuses from MSA-invited speakers, especially during Israel Apartheid Week-is very troublesome.
Gary,
You have completely ignored the issue of Rep. King's past as a terrorist supporter. That is blatant hypocrisy on his part and he has no business leading such hearings.
Anonymous,
In my view, King was wrong to support the IRA. To me the IRA were terrorists.
Satisfied?
Wejomerv,
You wrote "For political reasons, I think it might be best to expand the probe to any religious radicals."
What other RELIGION in the last 100 years has been involved with terrorism? What other religion had adherents kill 3,000 people in one act in the name of their god? Who else should we probe? The Amish?
One of the Muslim's strategies is to claim everybody else is doing what they do, so to single them out is Islamophobic. The fact of the matter, as the statistics Gary supplied proved, is that they commit an overwhelming number of terrorist acts.
.
But you don't find it troubling at all that a terrorist supporter is leading an investigation into alleged terrorist supporters? You don't see the hypocrisy?
Anonymous, don't you find it disingenuous to point to all conceivable nitpicks and quibbles rather than to address the main issue which, once again, is
"They [terrorists] share one common characteristic; they were all [overwhelmingly] perpetrated by Muslims"
Face the facts and if you don't like these accusations ... DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Speak out in your mosque or whatever, and come out unambiguously against terror in the name of Allah. Say you oppose the imposition of Sharia Law on the unwilling. Say to your peeps that their way is making things worse and they should try harder to adopt the culture that has endured them thus far.
.
Miggie,
First of all, I am not Muslim, I am Christian. Secondly, you're still skirting the issue: it is completely hypocritical for a terrorist supporter like King to be leading these hearings! The fact that he supports some forms of terrorism or certain terrorist groups, yet wants to investigate the Muslim community for its possible support of terrorism should give any reasonable person cause for concern. It should indicate to a reasonable person that Rep. King's motivations don't come out of a concern with terrorism, as he is fine supporting it, but from some other sort of feelings.
In my opinion, those feelings are ones of bigotry and prejudice against Muslims.
Many Japanese-Americans understand this all too well.
So do some Jewish-Americans.
Anonymous,
I hope you are following the hearings daily, as I am. Follow the testimony. Emerson's IPT seems to be posting daily reports.
One of the things that came out today from a father whose son joined the jihad is that groups like cair discouraged families fom going to the FBI. That is damning. I repeat. This is not nor should it be an exercise in daning an entire community. It should empower Muslims to break with those that want to control them. In many mosques and organizations, there is a cancer of radicalism, subversion and intolerance. We cannot ignore it.
That is unfortunate for that father, and I do feel sorry for him, but it is still completely anecdotal. He is not an expert on radicalization and extremism by any stretch of the imagination. And obviously he is going to have a very clear bias that will paint his testimony. Again, he has my sympathies, but his testimony is nowhere near "damning." I'd think you being a former law enforcement officer, you'd know a little bit more about what qualifies as legitimate evidence or expert testimony. Apparently not.
Anyways, you're still completely ignoring my main point!
If King supports terrorism (which he did/does) then what are his actual motivations for these hearings? Because it's clearly not out of a concern to combat terrorism, since he supports it.
Oh and I also want to ask, is CAIR being given a chance to testify and respond to all of these accusations?
From what I've read, no, they're not. That doesn't sound like a very fair situation to me, and makes these hearings even less informative or helpful.
Anonymous,
I already said I don't support KIng's position on the IRA. If that means he is unqualified, then replace him with another, but the hearings are needed.
You are echoing today's comments by Jackie Speier (D-CA) who told Zuhdi Jasser that he was not an expert!!!! She has pooh-pooed today's testimony because she is a liberal who has stated on her webpage that she opposes the hearings because the she sees it as discriminating against a religious group. She was not moved by the father's story of losing his son to jihad.
Yet, Speier was a victim of the Jonestown massacre (Jim Jones) in Guyana. She went to Jonestown with her boss Cong. Leo Ryan because of complaints from families that Jones' relgious group had taken over their kins'lives. Ryan was killed and she was shot but survived.
One would think she would be more sensitive.
As I wrote before, it is hard to distinguish between anonymous Muslims and anonymous Christians that take the Muslim line.
Insofar as King personally is involved with the IRA, I couldn't find anything on it. All I have is your representation. Whatever it may have been, the IRA terrorism was never directed against the US and as far as I know, was settled years ago. It never approached the size and scope of the Islamic terrorism that exists today and that is specifically directed at the US and other western Democracies (killing many Muslims and non-Muslims alike in the process).
If you insist on only virgins who have never been on the wrong side of one of your issues, you will not get anyone pure enough to conduct these investigations.
Here is another quote and an issue you might want to consider in your defense of the Muslim right to terrorize...
"So what has the self-appointed representatives of the Muslim community so up in arms? Are Muslims really in danger from Congress asking questions about widespread radicalization inside the Muslim community? Or are these histrionics a continued attempt to silence the growing majority of Americans who are seeing the glaring discrepancies between the rhetoric of the leading Islamic organizations and the reality of a growing homegrown terror threat? Evidence seems clear that it’s the latter."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-do-islamic-groups-fear-hearings-on-islamic-radicalization/?singlepage=true
.
Again, just because the man's story is tragic and deserving of sympathy, that in no way makes him some sort of expert. Anecdotal evidence is just that: anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately you're letting your partisan bias cloud your judgement on this, as I'd expect someone with your background to understand that very basic concept, and have a grip on what qualifies as real evidence or expert testimony.
Anonymous,
Do you consider Zuhdi Jasser an expert? How about Steven Emerson (who is not being called to testify-why I don'tknow).
Is CAIR being called? I don't know. I have already said they should be called-under oath. Same for ICNA, ISNA, MPAC and the rest.
Only an ostrich would pretend that the most frequent and spectacular acts of terror since 1980 or so have been committed by Muslims. That should include investigation of Rep. Charlie Wilson's illegal aid of terrorists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan called them "freedom fighters." George Bush's terrorists were Ronald Reagan's freedom fighters.
If Rep. King plans to investigate how Islam breeds terrorism, his investigation is a sham and should be shut down. If he is going to investigate the existence of active agents of terror in the United States, who act in the name of Islam, and how they recruit, he may have a valid point.
It is a slippery distinction to maintain in practice, but a vital one if his hearings are to have any integrity.
Post a Comment