Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:12 PM ET, 03/ 7/2011

Rep. King's hearings: Already a success?

By Jennifer Rubin

House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) will commence hearings on Islamic radicalization of Americans. The very notion that we should examine this phenomenon has created an uproar in the Islamic community. The White House -- surprise, surprise -- is trying to have it both ways.

Politico reports:

"We must resolve that, in our determination to protect our nation, we will not stigmatize or demonize entire communities because of the actions of a few," Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough told a crowd gathered in a gymnasium and prayer room at a mosque in northern Virginia.

"In the United States of America, we don't practice guilt by association. And let's remember that just as violence and extremism are not unique to any one faith, the responsibility to oppose ignorance and violence rests with each of us." . . . .

After the speech, McDonough initially rebuffed reporters' questions about whether his remarks were directed in any way at King or his planned hearings. However, after being pressed by journalists, the White House official offered what could be interpreted as a couched endorsement of the hearings, at least in principle.

"We welcome congressional involvement in the issue. It's a very important issue," McDonough said, without elaborating.

Got that? This is a serious problem, but one that the administration doesn't really want to articulate for fear of ruffling the feathers of the Muslim advocacy groups and the political correct crowd.

This has been the administration's modus operandi from the get-go, as it has refused to identify with any accuracy the nature of the threat we face, namely Islamic fundamentalism.

Cliff May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies shares the frustration of many conservative critics who see this as a self-defeating approach. He e-mailed me this morning:

Opponents of these hearings are taking willful blindness to a higher level. Radical groups within what we've come to call "the Muslim world" are waging what they call a "jihad" against the West. Such groups are not equal opportunity employers: They recruit and incite only among Muslim communities -- including the American Muslim community.

However, we're supposed to ignore the specific ideology and targets of the groups. Instead, we should be, we are told, taking a look at all those "environmental terrorists and neo-Nazi groups." However, noxious these organizations may be, they didn't bring down the Twin Towers, blow up our embassies, threaten to take down an airplane on Christmas or try to detonate a bomb in Times Square. They are not killing Americans in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

The notion that we should ignore the obvious in an attempt to curry favor with "moderate" Muslims here in the U.S. and to avoid offending those overseas is badly misguided. For starters, it assumes that those audiences are infantile in their inability to distinguish, as the rest of us do, the difference between radicalized, murderous Islamic fundamentalists and those who pose no threat whatsoever. In doing so, we only serve to undermine the efforts of those non-radicalized Muslims abroad who could use some assistance, even if it is only rhetorical in pushing back against extremists.

Moreover, it glosses over a real issue in the U.S.: a number of groups who offer themselves as "moderate" and with whom the administration consults are not helping matters, as evidence by the fit thrown over the prospect of examining how their fellow Muslims turn to murder and mayhem. Let's take CAIR, for example. This ostensibly anti-discrimination group has refused to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups. As I wrote last year:

CAIR has created its own cottage industry by hassling airlines, intimidating government investigators, and generally spraying lawsuits and claims of "discrimination" at those who single out Muslims for additional scrutiny in efforts to defend ourselves in a war waged by Islamic fascists against our civilization. (CAIR figures also had their share of encounters with the law. See here and here.)

It's not hard to figure out why public discussion of all this strikes fear in the hearts of those who would rather not see a public accounting of their actions. But even the administration has to acknowledge that failure to identify, understand and combat the role of Islamic fundamentalists' recruitment of Americans is foolhardy in the extreme. And, so, lo and behold, we learn, "While the thrust of McDonough's remarks seemed aimed at declaring common cause with the Muslim community, the White House official was also careful not to minimize the dangers posed by efforts to radicalize Muslims inside the United States. He also managed to announce, in advance of King's hearings, that the administration will soon roll out a comprehensive plan aimed at combating the radicalization effort." Well, I suppose CAIR won't like that either.

If King's hearings have spurred the administration to get off the stick and begin work on this issue, they are already a success. And if nothing else they have exposed just how unhelpful some Muslim American groups are in the war against Islamic jihadists.

By Jennifer Rubin  | March 7, 2011; 1:12 PM ET
Categories:  National Security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Libya matter in 2012?
Next: Berwick's demise: A lesson for Obamacare opponents

Comments

Conservatives are always looking for a bogeyman. The fear-mongering rolls on.

Posted by: jckdoors | March 7, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

let me translate jckdoors: Nothing to see here. If you die at the hands of muslim madman, oh well. In the meantime, have no fear. We'll tell you what to be afraid of and when to be afraid of it. Right now we, the enlightened left, believe you should be afraid of gasoline and white people. Both are deadly to the planet. Just ask us why.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 7, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Singling out any group of Americans for this kind of scrutiny should disgust us all. Would we accept this for white Christian males, based on their over-representation in certain organizations or in committing random acts of violence? Or perhaps of Jewish Americans, based on ties of prominent organizations to funding of West Bank religious fanatics? I don't think so, and we shouldn't. I cannot believe how smug your column is over something so deeply insidious.

Posted by: SageThrasher | March 7, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

And if anyone dare to suggest that we even discuss our military support of Israel as a variable in the Islamist threat,well watch out,SkipSailing will be all over your ass.

Posted by: rcaruth | March 7, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Rep. King has proven cooperative in other areas of governance. He should be asked, at a time when Muslims in the Middle East are risking their lives for democracy, does this democracy really need to be putting on legislative show trials to hype the danger posed by a small percentage of Muslims? The admininstration won't put it that way, however, for risk of offending King, who they have to work with. And I'm not surprised this blog doesn't understand this simple bit of politics.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | March 7, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

It sickens me that my country is prepared to stigmatize citizens (including a beloved niece-in-law) because of their religion. The vast majority of American Moslems--and, indeed, Moslems the world over--just want to live their lives and raise their families in peace. I would bet on the seductive quality of the American lifestyle over jihadist extremism any time, as long as people don't see the American lifestyle as unavailable to them and turn to extremism to punish those who discriminate against them for no reason.

Posted by: MaineWoman | March 7, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"For starters, it assumes that those audiences are infantile in their inability to distinguish, as the rest of us do, the difference between radicalized, murderous Islamic fundamentalists and those who pose no threat whatsoever."

The problem is that many Americans DO NOT distinguish between 'radicalized, murderous Islamic fundamentalists and those who pose no threat whatsoever.'

Posted by: cmk11 | March 7, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

time to take on the lefties here.

First, no one is being stigmatized. If the muslims don't like the attention that their radical co religionists engender, let them do something about it. It is their faith and therefore their problem.

The muslims want it both ways. They want to rely on groups like CAIR as their mouthpiece and at the same time demand that we blindly trust them.

I don't think so.

Muslims cannot outrun the reputation their faith has rightly earned. Most of the sorrow and woe in the world today is brought to us by Islam.

Americans expect that the government will act to ensure the physical safety of the citizens. That's one of the few reasons why we have a government. The threat to our safety from muslim madmen is something the government SHOULD attend to. The tender sensibilities of the lefties notwithstanding.
and as I noted on greg sargent's blog, oldbeach dude is simply wrong. There is no evidence that the citizens of the middle east are advocating FOR democracy. At the moment they are advocating AGAINST their rulers. What comes after the rulers are overthrown is anybody's guess. But the region doesn't have a great track record.

Already we're seeing Egypt's coptic christians suffer under the muslim lash. Not content with bombing a church over christmas, they recently stormed a church and killed the priest.

How about the dead christian in Pakistan? Imagine, being killed by muslims for blaspheming Islam! After all, the mere fact that we aren't muslims is evidence enough that we should be killed.

Friends don't call friends "infidel"


so rcaruth admits that islam is a threat. Now that is progress. Unfortunately his response to this threat is simply to cave to their demands. yeah, like that will work.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 7, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The sign that the hearings have had a positive effect is that a member of the Obama administration has had to warn against the demagoguing of muslims? Rubin has an odd measure of success.

Posted by: beckerl | March 7, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Skipsailing,
Too things are clear:
1) you don't know any Muslims, and
2) you don't understand the basis of distinctions between "lefties," "righties," "conservatives," and "liberals." I agree with your implication that the GOP is rampant these days with nativists (look it up) but conservatism is not about discriminating against classes of people based on the behavior of a few. If you want to cede the moral high ground to your opponents, don't be surprised when you find yourself marginalized.

Posted by: SageThrasher | March 7, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Taking skip's post to its logicial conclusion, Muslim civil wars that result in many dead will be a good thing then, because it result in less danger to the US.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | March 7, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

so rcaruth admits that Islam is a threat.
Skip,you are so full of s--t.

The most dangerous threat to the US is preemptive war by Israel with its 300 Nuke on Iran. If Israel uses them as a first strike,we could be drawn in to WW3,4,or5,depending on the Podhoretz's latest definition.
On the other hand if Israel is attacked,they have a right to defend themselves to the full extent of their arsenal. And we have full moral authority to assist them. No Preemption,GET IT.

Posted by: rcaruth | March 7, 2011 3:23 PM | Report abuse

No, Congress and its members should not be singling out particular religious groups. It's just not evident, even with several examples of Islam-influenced extremism, that any particular religion—or religion itself—is the heart of the problem.

What we at least know is that an ideology exists that uses interpretations of religion and philosophy as propaganda for radicalization. Rep. King should investigate radicalization factors in general, which would by definition naturally include the concept of Islamic radicalization. But by focusing on only the Islamic share of the problem, he's just attempting to confirm a preconceived notion that Islam and Muslims are the problem—and vilifying constituents in the process.

Posted by: goastsighting | March 7, 2011 3:35 PM | Report abuse

uh sage thrasher, it is two, not too. A simple typo I'm sure.

I don't know a lot of muslims, that much is true. So what?

I'm not advocating that anybody be discriminated against. Where do you find proof to the contrary?

it seems to me that what the muslim apologists seek to do is use hyperbole to argue against what amounts to a common sense initiative. We are facing a murderous ideology. Some of the adherents of that ideology live among us. Are we to concerns ourselves with the tender sensibilities of the lefties or are we to concern ourselves with the threat that Islam poses to our safety and world peace?

Instead of putting words in my mouth, ala beachboy, why not simply argue with facts? Oh yeah, the facts don't support the left in this case. We have been beset with attacks from muslims. Hence the need for personal assaults on those of us who want the situation confronted.

The left's problem is simple, getting in bed with islam has both benefits and dangers. Since both the left and radical islam want an end to capitalism and America it only makes sense for the beachboys of the world to fellow travel with the al Q types.

What happens, though, when America does fade? Do the lefties really think that the taliban types will stop stoning gays to death? Do they think that all the things that are apologized for today, you know the honor killings, female genital mutilation, sharia, whipping 14 year olds to death for a fatwa etc, will suddenly vanish?

The left is dining with the devil. Best use a long spoon guys.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 7, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

rcaruth, have you heard of the "serpent and the egg" dilemma?

Which is better, to slay the serpent in the egg, or to allow it to be born and prove its malignancy?

I have no problem with pre emption. Get it? You haven't made a case against such a course at all. All you've said is that in your opinion the moral weight shifts once Israel is attacked.

I have no doubt that the moral weight of the third republic shifted once Hitler launched the invasion of France. It is just that, well, it was a bit too late to respond then. Especially when one considers all the opportunities they had to slay the serpent while it was still in the egg.

It is my opinion that your position is silly and dangerous. The Israelis must suffer mass casualties BEFORE you will approve of an attack. I am heartily glad for the Israelis that no one in that government would be rash enough to seek your opinion.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 7, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

it is funny how investigating the behavior of a group that continually spawns mass murderers is tantamount to ceding the moral high ground.

I suppose that if we Americans want to achieve the ultimate in moral high ground we should kill a member of our government simply because we don't like his faith. If what sagethrasher writes is true, nothing short of that would give us the same moral boost.

Yeah, it is amazing. The left takes these silly postures to defend the indefensible. The only explanation I have come across that suits the situation is this: the left desires the end of America and the end of capitalism. So do the radical muslims. Hence the left becomes Islam's useful idiots. You know, kinda like being their b-words.

On your knees guys, that way you'll be all set for your beheading.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 7, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Amazing. A seriously mentally disturbed kid attempts to assassinate a Democrat member of congress and the left does not hesitate for a moment to point its cynical, hateful finger of blame at what it views as its true enemy - fellow Americans who hold honest, sincere and reasonable positions on matters of public policy that differ from its own. Any evidence? Not a shred. Any link at all? Not even the thinnest connection. But the right offers an ideology that is directly at odds with progressivism and is viewed as a competitor that must be demonized and delegitimized.

Contrast this with the left's response to Islamic fundamentalists who have committed countless acts of violence and murder in the name of their religion. All we hear are excuses and rationalizations to deflect attention and blame from those responsible. Christians are not committing numerous acts of violence around the world in the name of their religion and in an organized attempt to impose their religion on non-believers. Nor are Jews or any other group. Only Muslims. All Muslims? Of course not. But the number of Muslims who are directly engaged in this effort and support them is significant.

But any attempt to deal directly with this very real threat is greeted with hysterical howls from the left accusing those justifiably concerned of Islmaphobia -- a charge as based in reality as their attempts to blame the right for any act of violence that can be in any way interpreted as political.

Read the comments on this blog. The venom and anger and hatred is directed at only one group. Those who would not hesitate to murder you and everyone you care about to further a fanatical ideology? No. That level of bile and hostility is reserved for those who dare to hold contrary positions on health care reform, government spending, the proper role of government, abortion, etc.

This is madness.

Posted by: paco33 | March 7, 2011 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives are always looking for a bogeyman. The fear-mongering rolls on.

Posted by: jckdoors
-------------------------------
Jihadists who want to kill us are, unfortunately, real. The Homeland Security department rates home-grown terrorists as a major threat. Major Hasan, the Times Square bomber, and the plotters that the FBI arrests every couple of weeks are obvious examples. Most of these terrorists are disturbed or not very bright, but they are being radicalized by AQ and other Islamists.

We obviously need to explore how this pernicious ideology is being indoctrinated into susceptible American minds. What role are the mosques playing? How about the role of CAIR, which reportedly is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood? How about the doctrine of stealth jihad, whereby Muslims are commanded to lie and otherwise to conceal their intentions when they are weak? What can we do to prevent the spread of jihadism and to protect ourselves? These are certainly necessary questions.

Posted by: eoniii | March 7, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

If by success you mean Epic Fail, Yes.

Posted by: ViperVisor | March 7, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

It sickens me that my country is prepared to stigmatize citizens (including a beloved niece-in-law) because of their religion. The vast majority of American Moslems--and, indeed, Moslems the world over--just want to live their lives and raise their families in peace. I would bet on the seductive quality of the American lifestyle over jihadist extremism any time, as long as people don't see the American lifestyle as unavailable to them and turn to extremism to punish those who discriminate against them for no reason.

Posted by: MaineWoman
--------------------------
I agree except for your first sentence. Terrorism by American Muslims is an unfortunate fact that we must try to understand and remedy. It is these terrorist acts themselves that stigmatize Muslims, not the lawful efforts to prevent them. As a society, we have bent over backwards to accommodate Muslims and to assimilate them into our country. That's a major difference between our society and Europe.

Most American Muslims are peaceful and, I believe, patriotic. But there is a subset fanned by radical mosques and the internet that is actively plotting to harm us. That's why the FBI busts a couple of dozen homegrown Islamist terror plots each year. Most of those arrested are clueless morons, but how smart does a terrorist need to be to kill dozens? We must stop incubating these homegrown terrorists.

Posted by: eoniii | March 7, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eoniii | March 7, 2011 7:18 PM

That's why the FBI busts a couple of dozen homegrown Islamist terror plots each year. Most of those arrested are clueless morons, but how smart does a terrorist need to be to kill dozens? We must stop incubating these homegrown terrorists.
________________________________

Actually, most of those arrested are clueless morons who have been tricked into saying "jihad" into an open microphone by a paid or blackmailed FBI informant.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 7, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 7, 2011 2:47 PM

Most of the sorrow and woe in the world today is brought to us by Islam.

______________________________________________

Poor Skip is having repeated bouts of senior moments, when he's not imagining Jihadists under the bed.

The greatest woes and sorrows in the world are a result of wars and poverty. Last century, 100 times as many people died at the hands of Christian or aesthetic states than at the hands of Muslim states.

But let's not allow the facts get in the way of Skip's islamaophic diatribes.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 7, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

“If the muslims don't like the attention that their radical co religionists engender, let them do something about it. It is their faith and therefore their problem"

Was it the Jews' problem when they had an image problem in 1939?

“They want to rely on groups like CAIR as their mouthpiece and at the same time demand that we blindly trust them.”

What has CAIR said that you find so threatening Skip? What is so threatening about refusing to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups? Right now, there are GOP members who are lobbying for the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization), which is listed by teh State Department as a terrorist group, to be taken off that list.

This group has killed Americans.

“Americans expect that the government will act to ensure the physical safety of the citizens.”

Good point. So when the that government pursue policies that they know will place Americans in danger, who's to blame?

“There is no evidence that the citizens of the middle east are advocating FOR democracy.”

Really? So when Egyptians state they want a constitution and free elections, and the right to vote for their own leaders, what are they really saying Skip?

“Already we're seeing Egypt's coptic christians suffer under the muslim lash.”

Your talkin g points a 2 months out of date. It has been revealed that Coptic Christians were being attacked by government operative trying to inflame sectarian tensions. The Muslims came out in support of the Coptics after the attacks and during he demonstration, they expressed powerful unity.

“How about the dead christian in Pakistan?

Imagine, being killed by muslims for blaspheming Islam!”

One dead Christian in a country of 170 million people? Is that the best you got?

“Friends don't call friends "infidel"”

Friends don't call friends lefties or the right winger either.

Islam is no threat. You';re just a paranoid right wing lemming who's identity with an over-active reptilian brain.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 7, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: paco33 | March 7, 2011 6:09 PM

Christians are not committing numerous acts of violence around the world in the name of their religion and in an organized attempt to impose their religion on non-believers.

_______________________________________

Sure, those hundreds of thousands in Iraq died all of suicide right? The dozens blown to pink mist every week in Pakistan by drone strikes are victims of natural causes too I suppose.

You might feel better about yourself by qualifying that the death and destruction we are wreaking in the world is not in the name of religion, but it is certainly done on the name of our ideology. Whether it's religion or empire, it's still ideology.

We believe we are superior and that our way of life is, therefore whatever we do is justified.

“Read the comments on this blog. The venom and anger and hatred is directed at only one group.”

The same could be said for King's diatribes.

“That level of bile and hostility is reserved for those who dare to hold contrary positions on health care reform, government spending, the proper role of government, abortion, etc.”

Right Paco. Because all we hear from the right is bipartisan inclusion and attempts to reach across the isle.

Here's a thought. A DOD funded study found that of all the suicide bombing attacks in the last 30 years, 90-95% have had nothing to do with religion.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 7, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

SKIP/"I have no problem with pre emption. Get it?"

Fortunately,so far,Israel has chosen not to first strike Iran. This has been a NeoCon wet dream for years,but first Bush failed to preempt Iran,and the Israelis are procrastinating.(So Dissapointing) I think preemption got such a bad name with US/IRAQ,that it's become passe'.
So Skip,if Israel sucessfully takes out Iran without dragging us in,let me know. Thanks

Posted by: rcaruth | March 7, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Shingo, you must have missed this story over the weekend:

"A mob of an estimated 4,000 Muslims attacked a Coptic Orthodox parish in a town south of Cairo on Friday night, March 4, setting fire to the Coptic church and to several homes.

Four Coptic clerics are missing after the raid. They may have died in the fire that burned the church, or they may have been abducted.

The mob prevented firefighters from entering the town of Soul, and village officials sent away the troops that belatedly arrived on the scene to restore order. Instead a curfew has been imposed on the Christians of the town."

Posted by: eoniii | March 7, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 7, 2011 4:54 PM

Oh yeah, the facts don't support the left in this case. We have been beset with attacks from muslims.
__________________________________________

Beset with attacks?

I can think of 911. but since then, we have invaded and attacked 2 countries that have had nothing to do with those attacks.

Wat other attacks have we suffered since 911 Skip?

"Since both the left and radical islam want an end to capitalism and America it only makes sense for the beachboys of the world to fellow travel with the al Q types."

And end to capitalism and America huh? How can that be the case when Obama's policies have been identical to Bush's?

"What happens, though, when America does fade? Do the lefties really think that the taliban types will stop stoning gays to death?"

The Taliban types are in Afghanistan and seeing as you despise Muslims Skip, what concern of yours is it what happens in Muslim states?

What is your fascination with honor killings, female genital mutilation, sharia, whipping 14 year olds, other than a means to demonize Islam? None of this affects you or your way of life.

Isn't it true Skip that your life woudl be meaningless without people to hate and be afraid of?

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 7, 2011 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eoniii | March 7, 2011 7:18 PM

That's why the FBI busts a couple of dozen homegrown Islamist terror plots each year. Most of those arrested are clueless morons, but how smart does a terrorist need to be to kill dozens? We must stop incubating these homegrown terrorists.
________________________________
Actually, most of those arrested are clueless morons who have been tricked into saying "jihad" into an open microphone by a paid or blackmailed FBI informant.

Posted by: Shingo1
-----------------------------------
Maybe those innocent, entrapped morons should have had you representing them in court. From an FBI fact sheet:

"Nationwide, the Justice Department and its U.S. Attorney’s offices have prosecuted many terrorism cases in recent months and years. Last year, Human Rights First published a comprehensive study on prosecuting terrorism in federal court from 9/11 through the end of 2007. The study, entitled: "In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Court," found that federal prosecutors achieved a conviction rate of more than 90 percent in the set of terrorism cases examined by the report’s authors. The study examined a specific set of 257 defendants charged with terrorism related violations in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2007. Of the 160 defendants from this group who had their cases resolved, 145 were convicted of at least one count, either by a verdict of guilty after trial or by a guilty plea.

Recent Cases:

Since Jan. 1, 2009, more than 30 individuals charged with terrorism violations have been successfully prosecuted and/or sentenced in federal courts nationwide, including the following..."
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fact-sheet-prosecuting-and-detaining-terror-suspects-in-the-u.s.-criminal-justice-system

Posted by: eoniii | March 7, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

@Paco33
You said it all man. Thanks! I concur heartily.

Posted by: metanis | March 7, 2011 10:24 PM | Report abuse

"Of the 160 defendants from this group who had their cases resolved, 145 were convicted of at least one count, either by a verdict of guilty after trial or by a guilty plea"

Just like they did with the Australian David Hicks, who was in Guantanamo for 6 years. Rumsfeld told us these guys were the worst of the worst remember. Anyway, in exchange for a guilty plea, this member of the "worst of the worst" got released.

With the exception of the times Square bomber (who never had a bomb anyway) pretty much all those cases have involved an FBI informant who organized the defendants and offered them material and financial aid.

In the case of the Miami 6, 6 homeless bums (at least 2 of which were mentally retarded) were offered $50,000 and military clothing in return for agreeing to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago, even though none of them knew where the Sears Tower was.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 7, 2011 10:24 PM | Report abuse

"Shingo, you must have missed this story over the weekend"

Probably because it only appeared in one obscure news source and nowhere else. Why do you suspect such a major story has been overlooked?

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 7, 2011 10:30 PM | Report abuse

"Shingo, you must have missed this story over the weekend"
---------------------------------
Probably because it only appeared in one obscure news source and nowhere else. Why do you suspect such a major story has been overlooked?
Posted by: Shingo1
--------------------------------------
I suppose it was "overlooked" because it doesn't fit the narrative of the NYT and WP. Or else because it's of the "dog bites man" variety, too commonplace to be reported. Something like this seems to happen in Pakistan about every week, and it's not uncommon in Egypt either. Anyway, here's a Google page with stories about this atrocity from newspapers all over the world.
http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=coptic+church+attack&ncl=dj-WgEeTmehmxCMSJEkCGwocAVwtM&cf=all&scoring=d

Posted by: eoniii | March 7, 2011 11:01 PM | Report abuse

I suppose it was "overlooked" because it doesn't fit the narrative of the NYT and WP.
________________________________

Nor apparently, does it fit the Washington Times, or Al Jazeera, The Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC in Australia, Yahoo, the Australian or any other news source that was more than happy with the narrative when the Coptic Christian Church was bombed last year.

"Anyway, here's a Google page with stories about this atrocity from newspapers all over the world."

Thank you. The first link in that page begins with this sentence:

"Thousands of Christians, joined by many Muslims, have been staging sit-in since March 5 in front of the Egyptian TV building on the Nile Corniche in Cairo, protesting the attack on the church in the village of Soul and the inaction of the Egyptian armed forces in preventing the Muslims from torching and demolishing the church and terrorizing the Christian Copts and forcing them to evacuate the village."

That does lead one to ask, why the Egyptian armed forces, who are supposed to be in charge, did nothing to prevent the attack?

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 12:30 AM | Report abuse

So, Shingo, what's your theory? Mine is that the Egyptian military doesn't see its role as law enforcement, but it could be something more sinister. I don't know.

Communal violence of Muslims against Christians is a serious problem in Egypt, as it is many other places in Africa and elsewhere. If the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power, the Copt community of about ten million people will be in grave peril.

Posted by: eoniii | March 8, 2011 1:34 AM | 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