Rep King's Hearings Against Muslims

[Industrialsize]

I think it's a sad day for America that these hearings are taking place. In my opinion, Representative King is the New McCarthy!

Keith Ellison Tears Up At Hearing On Muslim-American 'Radicalization' (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim-American elected to Congress, broke into tears Thursday during a hearing investigating possible radicalization of Muslim-Americans, telling the House Homeland Security Committee the inquiry was “the very heart of scapegoating.”
“We’ve seen the consequences of anti-Muslim hate,” Ellison testified. “The best defense against extreme ideologies is social inclusion and civic engagement. … I fear these hearings may undermine our efforts in this direction.”
Ellison became emotional while recounting the story of Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old Muslim-American firefighter who died while saving others during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Hamdani, whose mother was in the audience, was castigated for his religion after his death, with some wondering whether he had been allied with the attackers, Ellison said.
“He should not be remembered as a Muslim, but as an American who gave everything for his country,” Ellison said.

 

[Industrialsize]

I know we have a fair amount of Muslim's as members of LPSG. I'd be very interested in hearing their take on the hearings.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I saw this live on MSNBC this morning. It's really, really sad that in 2011 we still have people like Pete King in positions of power fueling more racial bigotry towards Muslims with this sham of a hearing.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee tells it like it is.
(VIDEO) Sheila Jackson Lee Unloads On Rep. Peter King's Radical Muslim Hearing | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

 

[maxcok]

I think it's a sad day for America that these hearings are taking place. In my opinion, Representative King is the New McCarthy!

I think there are a lot of contenders for that distinction.

 

[Industrialsize]

From Eugene Robinson's Op-ed in the WAPO. I think he hits it right on the head:
If King is looking for threats to our freedoms and values, a mirror would be the place to start. Here's why. Imagine a young man, a Muslim, who changes in troubling ways. His two best friends become concerned, then alarmed, as the young man abandons Western dress, displays a newfound religiosity and begins to echo jihadist rhetoric about the decadence of American society. Both friends suspect that the young man has become radicalized and might even attempt some kind of terrorist attack.
One friend is Muslim, the other Christian. Does the Muslim friend have a greater responsibility than the Christian to contact the authorities? By the logic of King's witch hunt, he does.
The Homeland Security Committee hearings that King has convened are billed as an inquiry into "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response." In other words, King suspects that the Muslim community is somehow complicit. Individuals of one faith are implicated; individuals of another faith are not.



Eugene Robinson - Peter King's modern-day witch hunt

 

[Calboner]

The institution of these hearings is a fine exhibition of the action what cognitive psychologists call the availability heuristic: the tendency to estimate the probability or the frequency of an event of a certain kind according to how readily the idea of such an event comes to mind. Mention terrorism and people think of Muslim terrorists. But a responsible estimation of a threat can only be based on facts rather than on subjective mental associations. There is no denying that there are Muslim terrorists, some of them born and raised in this country. The pertinent factual question is: what proportion of native-grown terrorists are Muslim? John Tirman recently wrote the following in a piece published the Boston Globe:

The START database on terrorism in America, which tracks all incidents of political violence, shows that most attacks in the last two decades have been on black churches, reproductive rights facilities, government offices, and individual minorities. And those have been committed mainly by right-wing extremists. From 1990 to 2009, START identified 275 “homicide events’’ that killed 520 people and were committed by right-wing ideologues. There were many more incidents of destruction of property, nonfatal attacks, and other acts of thuggery by white supremacists, private militias, and the like.

The last two years have gotten worse, at least in hate speech. “For the second year in a row, the radical right in America expanded explosively in 2010,’’ notes the Southern Poverty Law Center in a just-released annual survey. Coupled with economic woes, this growth is “driven by resentment over the changing racial demographics . . . and the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories and other demonizing propaganda aimed at various minorities.’’

Unfortunately, Tirman's piece does not provide an answer to my question, but I suspect that Representative King knows even less about the matter than I do. We should be concerned about home-grown terrorism from any quarter. To single out Muslim Americans for attention on this point, to the disregard of non-Muslim associations in this country with known records of violence, is outrageous.

 

[D_stryhtfg]

Where are all of the liberals making fun of Ellison for crying? That's part of your shtick...making fun of someone for getting emotional about something that they care about....

Oh...and that story Ellison told...was completely false. The only factual part about it was the fact that there was a person with that name responding to the attacks of 9/11.

 

[Industrialsize]

Where are all of the liberals making fun of Ellison for crying? That's part of your shtick...making fun of someone for getting emotional about something that they care about....

Oh...and that story Ellison told...was completely false. The only factual part about it was the fact that there was a person with that name responding to the attacks of 9/11.

How about backing up your claim that this was a completely false story. OTHERWISE it's just you blowing hot air. I have a hunch you got your information from Fox.

Mohammad Salman Hamdani - An All-American Jedi - Profile - NYTimes.com
Mohammed Salman Hamdani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mohammed Salman Hamdani: A Hero All Along - By Matthew Shaffer - The Corner - National Review Online
9-11 Victim Memorial: Mohammad Salman Hamdani

 

[houtx48]

Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee tells it like it is.
(VIDEO) Sheila Jackson Lee Unloads On Rep. Peter King's Radical Muslim Hearing | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

I have known Ms. Jackson Lee since she was on city council here in Houston and one thing she knows is how to do is grab center stage and in this case I'll give her, her do. For once I agree with her on this waste of time and money so the Baggers can grandstand a little.

 

[getty1206]

I think it is a sad day when we have to be politically correct and can't offend any Muslim by taking our heads out of our asses and address that there is an element that wants to end the American way of life. What are the liberals so afraid of? Afraid they will be exposed as protecting these extremists? Working side by side with these people? I don't get it.

 

[maxcok]

I think it is a sad day when we have to be politically correct and can't offend any Muslim by taking our heads out of our asses and address that there is an element that wants to end the American way of life. What are the liberals so afraid of?

Liberals are afraid of an ignorant, gullible, stupid, prejudiced and hateful minority taking control of government and social policy, usurping our rights and civil liberties, depriving us of the guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, destroying the lives of average Americans - all to exclusively benefit a tiny minority of uberwealthy individuals and to feed the insatiable Corporatist machine, making us all slaves to its maintenance - that is, until it completely consumes itself, makes the planet uninhabitable, and the whole structure implodes.

Talk about ending "the American way of life". . . . Ironic, ain't it?

In short, liberals are afraid of strident, hate-filled, rightwing propagandists and their foolish minions dragging us all off the cliff and straight into dead end Militarist/Corporatist/Autocratic Hell. Clear enough?

What are so-called "conservatives" afraid of? Here's a suggestion: Take your head out of your ass, stop swallowing the manipulative, divisive, fear-based propaganda and lies spoonfed to you by your Rightwing Authoritarian idols (Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Palin, Limbaugh & Co, etc.), and make a date with reality.

Rightwing Authoritarianism and Conservative Identity Politics ​

Social Dominance Orientation And Conservative Identity Politics

​

 

[ThickMeatJacker]

Let's not over look Rep. King's admitted love and support of the Irish Republican Army. I guess killing English people or Catholics isn't terrorism, because he isn't supporting the killing of Americans.

 

[Calboner]

I think it is a sad day when we have to be politically correct and can't offend any Muslim by taking our heads out of our asses and address that there is an element that wants to end the American way of life. What are the liberals so afraid of? Afraid they will be exposed as protecting these extremists? Working side by side with these people? I don't get it.

I have a couple of question for you, Getty: (1) Which of the following two sources do you think is more likely to be effective in identifying domestic terrorists: specific factual information about individuals and organizations, or preconceived mental associations of certain groups with terrorism? (2) Of the acts of terrorism committed in the US by citizens or residents in recent years, for what proportion were Muslims responsible?

On the second question, I haven't done thorough research, but in the Wikipedia article "Domestic terrorism in the United States," I found five acts of terrorism listed for the past ten years, one of which was committed by a Muslim. The page of the FBI site on domestic terrorists sought by the Bureau shows nine people, only one of whom has what could be a Muslim name (more exactly, it is an Arab name, but many Arabs are Christians), but the terrorist organizations with which he is associated are the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front.

These facts do not, of course, settle the matter; but they are at least a beginning. What facts have you got that support your presumption that the first step in identifying domestic terrorists is to look at Muslims?

 

[ThickMeatJacker]

I have a couple of question for you, Getty: (1) Which of the following two sources do you think is more likely to be effective in identifying domestic terrorists: specific factual information about individuals and organizations, or preconceived mental associations of certain groups with terrorism? (2) Of the acts of terrorism committed in the US by citizens or residents in recent years, for what proportion were Muslims responsible?

On the second question, I haven't done thorough research, but in the Wikipedia article "Domestic terrorism in the United States," I found five acts of terrorism listed for the past ten years, one of which was committed by a Muslim. The page of the FBI site on domestic terrorists sought by the Bureau shows nine people, only one of whom has what could be a Muslim name (more exactly, it is an Arab name, but many Arabs are Christians), but the terrorist organizations with which he is associated are the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front.

These facts do not, of course, settle the matter; but they are at least a beginning. What facts have you got that support your presumption that the first step in identifying domestic terrorists is to look at Muslims?

Cal-

I hate to point this out, but the party of fear doesn't want its followers to do research, or have any independent thought. If they did, they would see all the holes in the logic supported by the tea/fear/conservative/gay hating/ women hating party. They want them to follow like lemmings over the cliff. Remember, if they don't win on fear, what would they win on? Sound policy? Right...

 

[maxcok]

On the second question, I haven't done thorough research, but in the Wikipedia article "Domestic terrorism in the United States," I found five acts of terrorism listed for the past ten years, one of which was committed by a Muslim. ?

". . . a January 2011 terrorism statistics report — compiled using publicly available data from the FBI and other crime agencies — from the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) shows, terrorism by Muslim Americans has only accounted for a minority of terror plots since 9/11. Since the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, Muslims have been involved in 45 domestic terrorist plots.

Meanwhile, non-Muslims have been involved in 80 terrorist plots. In fact, right-wing extremist and white supremacist attacks plots alone outnumber plots by Muslims, with both groups being involved in 63 terror plots, 18 more plots than Muslim Americans have been involved in. . . .
​

Given the fact that non-Muslim terrorists account for almost twice as many plots as Muslim terrorists in the United States since 9/11, King’s justification that he is targeting Muslims because they represent the primary threat seems hollow. Additionally, King’s hearings come at a time when Muslim American terrorism and involvement in extremism has actually plummeted in the past couple years, according to a Duke University study put out last month. Moreover, nearly 4 in 10 Al-Qaida related plots in the United States have been broken up thanks to intelligence provided by the Muslim community themselves and 70 percent of recent terror plots in the United States have been foiled by help from Muslim Americans."

ThinkProgress » As King Targets Muslims, . . .​

Poster notes: These statistics compare the number of terrorist plots detected, not the number of acts actually carried out. One wonders what these numbers would be if undercover FBI/Homeland Security investigators were not disproportinately focused on Muslim extremists vs. other extremist groups, and if agents didn't involve themselves in encouraging small time lone Islamic "terrorists" to move ahead with half-baked plans just to increase their arrest scores, to make us all feel safe and secure in the job they're doing. Personally, I think at least a few of the disrupted "plots" smack of entrapment.

–- [Of the] 83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three…were clearly connected with the jihadist cause. (3.6% of total) -- RAND Corporation Report

–- A total of 1,571 terrorist attacks occurred in the E.U. from 2006-2008 of which only 6 were committed by Islamist terrorists which translates to less than 0.4% of all attacks, which means
99.6% of all attacks were committed by Non-Muslims. -- Europol Report

"According to the FBI, Muslim-Americans were responsible for just 6% of all domestic terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2005. Latinos were responsible for 42% of terrorist attacks, left-wing extremists for 24%, and Jewish extremists for 7%. Yes, that’s right, Latinos and Jews have committed more domestic terrorist attacks since 1980 than Muslims (LoonWatch)."

WITCH HUNTS AND FIGHTBACKS​

 

[Calboner]

Cal-

I hate to point this out, but the party of fear doesn't want its followers to do research, or have any independent thought. If they did, they would see all the holes in the logic supported by the tea/fear/conservative/gay hating/ women hating party. They want them to follow like lemmings over the cliff. Remember, if they don't win on fear, what would they win on? Sound policy? Right...

Oh, absolutely. While all political action depends on irrational factors, the active promotion of irrational ones over rational ones--of magical thinking, wishful thinking, and fearful thinking over critical thinking--has come to define conservatism in American politics and has been the modus operandi of the GOP for at least the past ten years. But the factors themselves are operative in all human beings, and I do not assume, every time I encounter someone whose thinking is clearly under their influence, that he or she is completely enslaved by them. There are persons on this forum who make it clear in their posts that they will acknowledge only those facts that confirm their views and will if necessary do without facts altogether, or make use of falsehoods presented as facts. I hope that the person to whom I was replying is not one of those.

Maxcok, thank you for providing such abundant factual substantiation of the point that I was making. It is at bottom a fairly simple one, and its factual basis seems to me beyond reasonable disputation: most domestic terrorists are not Muslims; therefore, focusing efforts on Muslims can only reduce our ability to prevent domestic terrorism.

 

[millionman]

I read through the initial postings in this thread and I found myself shocked. I am amazed at the ignorance present here. These hearings are discussing the Radicalization of men and women in the United States. It is simply covering an area of concern regarding a specific group of people. A religious group, that can include any and all races, and is not being limited to men or women of Arab decent. This is not a RACE hearing, and is not a "witch hunt". Discussing a serious issue such as Radicalization of Islam in the U.S. is a very serious matter and is deserving of a hearing. To read this thread is to ignore the actual events taking place. Read through the transcripts and you'll actually see the grandstanding is being done on the Democratic side with NO BASIS for their remarks. Shelia Jackson Lee is a fool and her remarks prove her to be such, yet again. If we're capable of holding hearings regarding Steroids in Major League Baseball, or for the appropriate rubber to be used in tires, I think we can set aside some time and money to discuss this serious issue.

I find the comparison to McCarthy to be most disturbing. It is a complete disregarding of the facts of the hearings, and it is also a misrepresentation of the Communist Hearings of the 1950s. Joe McCarthy actually made a difference in a positive way. The hearings led to the arrest and capture of NUMEROUS Soviet agents in this country, and the FBI records prove it. There were men and women in this country operating to undermine military actions, stealing state secrets from multiple agencies, and the hearings played a substantial role in illuminating some of these people. Why is this event so misconstrued? Because it is politically expedient. Glossing over Radical Islam is done at our own peril. That is evidenced by the ineffectiveness of President Clinton in dealing with Osama Bin Laden when he was presented the opportunity. His inaction, even when encouraged by his advisers to act, led to American men and women dying. There is NO denying this and skirting the issue. Radical Islam is here in this country, and they are recruiting ANYONE and EVERYONE to the cause. They even managed to radicalize a Military Psychiatrist. There is NO denying the threat, and it is NOT fear mongering to connect the dots. Reality is just cruel that way.

You can name call and demean all you like. It doesn't change the facts of this matter. Most people know, and fully understand, that there are peaceful Muslims and that they out number the radicals. Does that mean we should not be on guard against the Radicals? To do so is completely foolish and irresponsible. I really am having a hard time understanding what the problem is here. Somehow the Tea-Party is more evil than Radical Islamic terrorists that want to kill American citizens, including you and the Liberals of our nation? This is irrational. With the amount of hatred I've seen pour out of the Left towards their fellow Americans, but defending the Radical Islamists is shocking and terrifying in itself. I do not understand this logical disconnect.

It really is very simple. There are bad people that want to murder people, and force the copulation of the Western world to their will. I don't care if they were Buddhists, or Nazis. They WILL NOT be allowed to operate. They are the enemies of ALL of us, not just a select group or two. Denying the threat exists, or brushing it to the side as a non-issue or "fear mongering" is reductionist and does not address the REAL threat.

Just think, Nadal Hasan succeeded in murdering the soldiers at Fort Hood. The underwear bomber was unsuccessful in attempting to blow up the plane. The Times Square bomber failed as well. Does anyone else remember the number of attacks on the U.S. post 9/11? ZERO! Understanding who the enemy actually is and how he operates is the key to defeating him. Again, why is it not ok to have hearings about how they are operating in our own back yard?

 

[chicagosam]

I read through the initial postings in this thread and I found myself shocked. I am amazed at the ignorance present here. These hearings are discussing the Radicalization of men and women in the United States. It is simply covering an area of concern regarding a specific group of people. A religious group, that can include any and all races, and is not being limited to men or women of white decent. This is not a RACE hearing, and is not a "witch hunt". Discussing a serious issue such as Radicalization of the Christian Right in the U.S. is a very serious matter and is deserving of a hearing. To read this thread is to ignore the actual events taking place.

Just replace the religion and the race and you may get an idea of how offensive and small-minded this way of thinking is, although there are many that might find truth in the above.

 

[ThickMeatJacker]

Million man-

If you truly believe that then you drank the GOP's fear kook-Aide. This has nothing to do with the hunt for terrorist. If it was King, who provides support to the IRA, by his own admission., would have to investigate himself. No this has everything to do with the party of fear keeping the fear alive, so that people like you will be scared and vote for their ridiculous causes. What is next? Gays, Hispanics, women, pretty much anyone who isn't a white man.