Hearings on Islamic Radicals

You see, I live in America.

And I am Jewish.

I understand that there are Muslims who are extremist.

I even understand that many live in this country.

But this is digusting.

It's not "protecting the country", you morons. It's stereotyping, scapegoating, and being hostile and stupid. If anything, the distress caused by these idiots will probably cause more unrest than if they did nothing. Thanks, jerks.

Oh, and just in case you thought all Congresspeople were asses:

Guys? Please listen to him.

What's the "disgusting" part? I'm not seeing it in the article (unless you count Ellison's blatant appeal to emotion).

Having said that, I do have serious questions regarding King's motivations here.

edited 10th Mar '11 12:24:44 PM by silver2195

Weren't that last five or so domestic terrorists all white? ...erm, yeah.

edited 10th Mar '11 12:27:55 PM by johnnyfog

Alright, I type things when I'm angry, yadda yadda yadda.

The point is this: it is not only wrong to implicitly link Muslims and solely Muslims with extremism, it is wrong to not hold any kind of hearings on any other terrorist organizations whatsoever, like, oh I don't know, the IRA.  ^*

And before you say "But that doesn't mean he doesn't care about other terrorists," well, here's a quote from this article:

edited 10th Mar '11 12:32:23 PM by OurGLORIOUSLeader

Ah, but apparently the IRA are the "good" terrorists, according to Peter King.

So killing British soldiers and civilians is ok, but if you're killing Americans...

Fuck off King.

edited 10th Mar '11 12:34:26 PM by GameChainsaw

Oh wow. Listed right before this, too.

Ok, that's a WTF. I mean I think these hearings are despicable, but I'd still think somewhat better of the IRA than I would of Islamic terrorists (the IRA were slightly better about not killing civilians).

But I can' t believe that this guy Peter King actually went to Ireland to speak for the IRA and endorsed their terrorism. WTF. If that was a "less popular" terrorist group, that would be borderline treason.

Am I the only one disturbed by this line of reasoning? We keep hearing "If anything, investigating Islamic clerics for radicalism will cause more Muslim men to become terrorists, in rage at racism or something."

Would government officials not have investigated Catholic clergy child abuse if they were afraid of Catholic men becoming terrorists? Either they would have anyway, which requires us to question the double standard, or they wouldn't have, which means there's a perverse incentive here that radical Christians haven't been clever enough to take advantage of.

Furthermore, the bigotry model doesn't explain the absence of terrorist attacks by Hindus, East Asians, or other immigrant groups who suffer from racism.

I kind of agree with the first part. I don't like the argument that you shouldn't accuse x group of being violent or else they'll react violently against you- seems like a failure in logic to me.

Like I said, I was angry when I posted that.

And yes, I do know that there are more Muslim extremists than, say, Buddhist or Confucianist extremists. But that has to do with the fact that a) Lots of people don't know that Islamic extremism is a fairly new invention and b) that yes, to a very slight extent, the ways Muslims in places like Afghanistan and Yemen have seen the way the U.S. acts towards them may have become more prone to accept a more radical way of life if it means getting back at the Americans that invaded the Middle East based on lies and greed.  ^*

Well, to be blunt, the IRA has never been a threat to the US, and this hearing is about a threat to the US.

Kings motivations are highly suspect to me, but at the same time this sort of study is something that I think needs attention. We do need to look deeper into the factors that get Americans converted to radical Islam, regardless of their background.

But the enemy we need to focus on, and stay focused on, is radical Islamists, not Islam as an entire faith. Radical Islam is the single greatest current threat to this country and its stability, at least when it comes to foreign enemies. I think that needs to be acknowledged, but at the same time it needs to be done in a way that makes it clear we aren't on a witch hunt against Muslims themselves, that would only serve to further the cause of Islamic Radicalism.

edited 10th Mar '11 12:53:43 PM by Barkey

Really hoping this thread doesn't become a shitstorm about Islam...

Part of what bugs me about the hearings is that it doesn't seem like something that Congress should be doing and is little more than stigmatizing a group.

I'm positive that the FBI is doing good work keeping tabs on Muslims (and anyone else) who has a radical ideology.

This "blowback theory" imposes an outsider interpretation on people's behavior. Muslims have their own civilization with its own values. You can't assume terrorist groups are able to recruit people to the extent that they're offended by American foreign policy that offends liberals. Their civilization, their values, their motives.

And I'd agree that radical Islam really germinated in the 1920s. The Caliphate meant there was somebody who could call shenanigans on extreme interpretations of the scriptures like Wahhabism, which was only able to take off in the power struggle caused by the Ottoman Empire's collapse.

^^ That's the smartest thing I've heard on the subject. Congress has nothing to offer to this besides picking up a few votes and sowing seeds of racial tension.

edited 10th Mar '11 1:08:54 PM by johnnyfog

Yeah, I agree. The only reason the Senate needs to be involved is so they can reach a greater understanding of this problem.

However, it should not be the public circus that they are trying to turn this into, it would be private meetings with the various intelligence agencies and Homeland Security, who already know more about this than the Senate could ever glean.

Edit: Yeah, the house. Was having a brain fart.

edited 10th Mar '11 3:55:53 PM by Barkey

Don't you mean the House?

Radicals should be found but this, seriously? If this turns into a witch hunt like Mc Carthy started I will officially lose any respect I had left for the Republicans.

As long as we focus on radical Islam and what factors motivate individuals towards radical Islam we're fine; once we start freaking out about the religion itself...

You put it better then I could.

I will give you guys a headstart on that: most Muslims want the return of the caliphate but are happy to do so peacefully. Others are not happy to do so. This is especially evident in the UK, no idea how widespread it is in America for example.

edited 10th Mar '11 3:19:46 PM by HellmanSabian

I noticed there hasn't been a mention that vast majority ie nearly all of the American Muslims want nothing to do with radical Islamic beliefs.

Well, I guess we all just assumed it was obvious.

Now, the inevitable backlash this will get will probably overcome any resolution the comittee makes. But this time, can you really blame them?

After reading about the IRA thing, my suspicions of King's motivations have increased about twentyfold.

I'm tempted to respond to the "the FBI can handle it" argument by arguing that public hearings are necessary to "name and shame" Islamic clerics who tacitly promote extremism, but now that I think about it, that would come too close to an attack on free speech.

Out of curiosity: what percentage of US Muslims would you say support Islamic extremism? I'm not just talking about al-Qaeda here, but also the Islamic equivalents of King's beloved IRA, like Hamas. I'm wondering because it seems that everyone acknowledges that supporters of extremism are the minority, but no one ever seems to specify just how small a minority.

edited 10th Mar '11 4:05:07 PM by silver2195

This guy seems like a bit of a Fenian.

"Have you, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party Al Qaeda?"

Spooky Mc Carthyism raises its head again. Witch hunts are deplorable.