Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:00 PM ET, 03/11/2011

Friday question

By Jennifer Rubin

Controversy swirled this week over the Homeland Security Committee's hearing on Islamic radicalization. Critics cried, "Racism!" or "McCarthyism!" Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and his defenders argued that recruitment by jihadists is a serious problem and that the knee-jerk opposition by Islamic groups and leftists tells us more about them than the King hearings.

Who do you think won the debate? Why? Remember all answers must be in by 6 p.m. ET Sunday.

By Jennifer Rubin  | March 11, 2011; 5:00 PM ET
Categories:  Friday question  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mitch Daniels doubles down on social issues 'truce'

Comments

please check out http://www.islamicsolutions.com/my-log-9-why-they-hate-islam-and-muslims/

Posted by: nabi18 | March 11, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

The number one purpose of our government is to protect us and the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. Clearly, the radicalization of American Muslims is a threat, as evidenced by, for instance, the Fort Hood Massacre, the attempted-Times Square bombing, and individuals like Anwar al-Awlaki. Therefore, these hearings are more than justified and are long overdue. Those who are opposed to them are too stuck in their multiculturalist, leftist, politically correct frame of mind to realize this basic truth.

Posted by: ralterb | March 11, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Asking who won the debate is the wrong question. I suspect that if you asked average Americans about the relationship between Islam and terrorism, virtually all of them would tell you a relationship exists and it is a threat to the US and the West. (There'd be a lot of disagreement on the exact nature of the relationship.) That was true before the hearings and it remains true afterwards.

The purpose of the cries of "racism" and "McCarthyism" was to enforce a taboo against discussing the relationship rather than to deny it. The message, simply put, was, "Bring this up and you will be drummed out of polite society. We will slander you. We will make you into a villain." It is the same thing they did to Juan Williams, to Mark Steyn in Canada, to Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands, and so on.

In this, they won the "debate." There are any number of people who would be interested in this debate, who know something useful about it, who are genuinely interested in the truth of the matter, but who won't hold or participate in hearings or other inquiries to find out. Why put up with the abuse and the stigma?

The result is going to be less attention to the threats posed by radical Muslims (who are a tiny minority of all Muslims, of course). Perhaps a more interesting question is why this result is so important to them.

Posted by: rodomontade | March 11, 2011 8:08 PM | Report abuse

What debate?

We have innumerable secret and not so secret agencies and a Homeland Security that has swelled beyond imagining. We have been ripped off for trillions over the years to prop these macho posers up. It's supposed to be in their Jack Bauer domain to stay on top of these things.

King is just a political pig, a repugnicon liar. This is to reinforce to those dependable 25-33% of fools who always poll for hate and against their own best interest that his party is their party or to keep the fear ratcheted up so they can be controlled.

All your religions can go to hell. Particularly the one that started it all over 5,000 years ago. The one this "writer" represents and the apartheid country that has brought all, believers or nay. to the brink of extinction.

Posted by: mot2win | March 11, 2011 10:02 PM | Report abuse

I don't think this falls under the definition of a 'debate'. But I think King was wrong to hold these hearings. If King and his defenders want to stop recruitment by jihadists, these hearings were not the way to do it. After 9/11, George Bush made the point that we are not at war with Islam. By making American-Muslims feel that they not as American as non-Muslims, King is making them more vulnerable and receptive to radicalization.

Posted by: KayEllen48 | March 11, 2011 10:59 PM | Report abuse

In Seattle this week right wing racists placed a bomb along a Martin Luther King day parade route.

Republicans fired the workers who found the bomb and reported it to 9-1-1. Apparently the report of a racist attack by the right wing is against Republican principle. It will get you fired.

It got the chief of PBS fired for identifying racism.

The FBI reports that since 9/11 there have been 85 terrorists attacks agains US citizens by right wing terrorist organizations in this country, and less than half that by muslim organizations.

This week Rubin ran a racist column and kept her job.

The southern racist block has taken ahold of this country. confederate flags, the old south, are on the rise according to law enforcement.

Rubin should be fired for her racist article, but because she is full of hatred and wants to use her bigotry to spread her hate she still has her job.

Rubin is filth. All racists are filth.

Posted by: colonelpanic | March 11, 2011 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Mr' Bledsoe who's son was convicted of killing the serviceman at the recruiting station won the debate. When one of the democratic congresswomen stated that the witnesses were not experts Mr. Bledsoe retorted are any of you sitting on the committee experts. What qualifies you to sit on the committee and whet you are after was some political gain so you could be reelected. Mr. Bledsoe' s story was so compelling as were the stories of all the witnesses. Rep. King won the day because the truth was on his side.

Posted by: eddiehaskall | March 11, 2011 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company