Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:29 AM ET, 03/ 8/2011

The left wigs out about hearings on Islamic radicalization

By Jennifer Rubin

The left is certainly upset about the upcoming House Homeland Security Committee hearings on Islamic radicalization of Americans. Richard Cohen declares ominously, "[Rep. Peter] King is setting a dangerous precedent. The government has no business examining any peaceful religious group because a handful of adherents have broken the law." That would make sense if King were "investigating Islam." He's not; he's investigating how a small segment of Muslims become radicalized. But Cohen is not to be assuaged. He pronounces, "Inherent in his rhetoric and his insistence on holding his hearings is the insinuation that Islam is not American." Inherent? Where? Really, the only ones making such accusations are the hearings' critics.

Eugene Robinson acknowledges that "the Sept. 11 atrocities were indeed committed by men who espouse a version of Islam -- one that the vast majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims reject as warped and blasphemous. It's also true that al-Qaeda and its affiliates continue to mount attacks against the United States and the West, and that jihadist ideology is a deadly weapon." But he is still insistent that no good can come from the hearings:

King offers no support for his insinuation that Muslim Americans are giving aid and comfort to terrorists; to the contrary, Muslim clerics and worshipers in this country have been vocal in their rejection of jihadist rhetoric and violence. And unless King believes Muslims are clairvoyant, why would he expect them to be any better than Christians, Jews or anyone else in identifying lone-wolf gunmen or bombers whose private torment becomes obvious only in retrospect?

Security hearings that focus exclusively on Muslim Americans serve only to amplify the rumblings of Islamophobia that seem to become louder and crazier by the day.

Well, it's generally best to have hearings to get the facts, but unfortunately the record of arrests and convictions of CAIR officials suggests that not all American Muslims are refraining from giving aid and comfort to violent jihadists. We had the same imam (Anwar al-Awlaki) preach to several 9/11 hijackers and Maj. Nidal Hasan, so plainly there is some cause for concern. And, alas, CAIR and other groups steadfastly refuse to denounce specific groups (Hamas, Hezbollah) or specific instances of terrorism. As for clairvoyance, none is required. King isn't interested in the pure lone wolf (are there any?), but in those who are recruited and radicalized by Islamists.

As for Robinson's conclusion, it is simply wrong. He writes:

The narrative that al-Qaeda uses to recruit suicide bombers is that the United States and the West are not fighting terrorism but trying to destroy Islam. Peter King, with his little hearings, is about to make it harder to refute the jihadists' big lie.

No, the narrative both pre- and post-9/11 (as evidenced by studies of Guantanamo detainees) is that those who don't submit to the jihadists' totalitarian version of Islam should be murdered. We need to focus less on trying to mollify jihadists. (Should we also abandon Israel? Hide women from view?) We need to find out more about why Americans are enticed into an Islamic network and how that recruitment and radicalization take place.

That's the purpose of a congressional hearing: to learn and discuss something of importance to public policy. Has the left all of a sudden become anti-social-science? The exercise here, it seems, is to propagate the view that merely asking questions about radical Islamists is more grounds for screaming "Islamophobe!"

By Jennifer Rubin  | March 8, 2011; 8:29 AM ET
Categories:  National Security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Bits
Next: The alternative to ObamaCare

Comments

Muslims in multiple countries are giving their lives to through off their oppressors, and hopefully transition to democracy. And what does one of the two parties in the world's greatest democracy choose to do at the same time? Conduct hearings that will do little more than provide a platform for spleen venting by those who have little to contribute to the process. Anyone with even a basic understanding of foreign affairs knows the hearings are a bad idea.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | March 8, 2011 8:47 AM | Report abuse

@oldabandonedbeachhouse,

It is lovely you have such a firm grasp on the direction of the Middle East and such supreme confidence that the one "oppressor" will not simply be exchange by another oppressor as happened in Iran and as the Coptic Christians are finding has happened in Egypt.

Perhaps you could enlighten us on why you are so optimistic about the Middle East, explain why Iran and Egypt are mere aberrations, and how this wonderful new world of your imagination will unfold. On the other hand, you probably cannot provide such enlightenment.

Posted by: RickCaird | March 8, 2011 9:22 AM | Report abuse

The word "hopefully" is apparently too big for Rick's vocabulary. And I've yet to see word one about how these hearings help us in the Muslim word. When even the Speaker won't defend King, you know these hearings are nothing more than a vanity project, designed to make certain conservatives feel good about themselves. And today, that is what largely what conservative governance is about.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | March 8, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

The critics are correct. The battle against Jihad is important and should not target only Muslims.

If there are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs or any other groups or individuals who support Jihad, Rep. King's committee should investigate them too.

Posted by: IsraelP | March 8, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

oldabandonedbeachhouse writes:

"And I've yet to see word one about how these hearings help us in the Muslim word."

The hearings, of course, are designed to help (and protect) us here against the threat of homegrown Islamic radicals. That is why they are being conducted by the House Homeland Security Committee.

But then again, I guess I don't have a "basic understanding of foreign affairs," like, for example, our exalted leader and his flunky, Hillary Clinton, who studied foreign policy for years and years, as her stellar record reveals.

Posted by: gord2 | March 8, 2011 10:15 AM | Report abuse

@oldabandonedbeachhouse

So, you want to hold the whole future of the middle east on "hopefully". Yes, I can see how and why you support liberal policies. "Hopefully", they will work. Plan B is "Even more hopefully".

Posted by: RickCaird | March 8, 2011 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"The word "hopefully" is apparently too big for Rick's vocabulary. And I've yet to see word one about how these hearings help us in the Muslim word. When even the Speaker won't defend King, you know these hearings are nothing more than a vanity project, designed to make certain conservatives feel good about themselves. And today, that is what largely what conservative governance is about.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse"

And how about liberal governance? Liberals feel sooo good whenever they can defend the "other" against alleged mistreatement from America. Nevermind that the "other" may be planning or perpetrating terrible crimes.

The Left can't escape it's propensity to traffic in identity politics. If Peter King is having a hearing about radical Islamism, well then, he must be going after and denigrating ALL Muslims! Not just those that are becoming radicalized and dangerous.

The Left also can't give up their fantasy of muliticulturalism and the wonders it bestows upon us all. The fact is that 99% of all terrorist acts committed are committed in the name of Islam. Not Christianity, not Buddhism, not Judiasm and not for the Sun Gods. This isn't a coincidence. This is a highly inconvenient fact for the Left because it puts the lie to the notion that multiculturalism is the end all be all of a happy and thriving global community. So, instead of discarding the myth of multiculturalism and facing reality, the Left simply attacks those that don't accept the tenets of their multicultural worldview. That's much easier than facing hard reality and it permits the Left to perpetuate the fantasy that their worldview is the correct one.

And for those that say that Christians (or whoever) also commit terrorist acts - they can be dismissed as either unserious, or ignorant. Yes, Timothy McVeigh was Christian and what he did was a terrorist act. The massive difference though is that McVeigh didn't commit that act in the *name* of Christianinty. He wasn't saying his Hail Mary's and praising Jesus Christ when he set off that bomb. Islamic terrorism is ALWAYS in the name of Islam. Their religion is THE focal point for their terrorist acts. When a McVeigh commits such an act, his Christianity is merely incidental.


Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 8, 2011 10:50 AM | Report abuse

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world & 5.3 million in America.

Rep. King claims American Muslims give harbor to terrorists among them & refuse to co-operate with US law enforcement on investigations, but gives no proof or cites a single specific example.

A recent study from the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, a Duke University/UNC/RTI collaboration, contradict King's fact-free fear-mongering:
- Tips from the Muslim American community led to a terrorist plot being thwarted in 48 of 120 cases since 9/11 involving Muslim Americans.
- The number of Muslim-Americans involved in domestic acts of terrorism is on the decline (NOT growing)
- 11 Muslim Americans executed successful terrorist attacks in US since 9/11, killing 33 people - 3 deaths per yr. For perspective, approx 150,000 people were murdered in US since 9/11 - 12,500 deaths per yr.

As David Schanzer, Triangle Center Director, said: "Americans should take note that these crimes are being perpetrated by a handful of people whose actions are denounced and rejected by virtually all the Muslims living in the United States.”
http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/tcths/about/documents/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_Since_911_An_Accounting.pdf

Peter King, BTW, knows domestic terrorism - he was a major supporter of the IRA, one of the most violent terrorist groups in recent European history. In 1982, King told a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County: "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." The IRA terrorists' "struggle", funded with American dollars & fed with American guns,lasted from 1969 to 1997 and included the murder of Britain's Lord Mountbatten and several innocent Brits, and the deaths of thousands of Irish citizens, politicians, police & soldiers. IRA terrorists killed many more than those who perished on 9/11.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/peter-kings-secret-terrorism-loving-history

Worse than the rampant hypocrisy of Rep King's absurd witch hunt is the tone of Jennifer Rubin's mocking partisan 'gottcha' article. Rushing to make it a RW-LW issue, she ignores the facts and historical record which color the story, preferring to make it about a Republican representative making leftie liberals "wig" out.

On my own partisan note - this happens all too often with radical RW journalists.

Posted by: TruthFairy | March 8, 2011 10:58 AM | Report abuse

There is a clear and present danger to only listening to those things that you want to hear and make you feel good.

This pretty much characterizes the mindset of the Liberal-Left.

conservatives: because someone has to be the adult in the room

Posted by: stevem1 | March 8, 2011 11:01 AM | Report abuse

RitchieEmmons said "Yes, Timothy McVeigh was Christian and what he did was a terrorist act."

Actually, McVeigh was an ex-Catholic atheist. I say that as an ex-Catholic atheist myself.

Having said that, I think the constant moaning I hear from lefties about Christians being just as bad as Muslims is absolute nonsense. All you have to do is look at their religious texts to see that the religions are completely different, with one looking to a non-violent man, Jesus, as its exemplar, and the other to a military leader.

Posted by: Peejay | March 8, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Gee -- a hearing might be necessary because 99 PERCENT OF ATTACKS ON THIS COUNTRY are planned/undertaken by RADICAL ISLAMISTS?!

Plenty of evidence out there to prove it. This hearing is LONG overdue.

Posted by: borishadenuf | March 8, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

For obvious or not to obviousd reasons everyone hesitates to state the OBVIOUS that Islam is very clear on the obligation of all Muslims to engage in jihad.

The object of jihad, both peaceful and non-peaceful is the conversion and/or subjugation of all other cultures and kafirs (non-Muslims) to Islam and Sharia Law. Any Muslim or non-Muslim who actually reads the words of the Koran, Sira and Hadith will quickly recognize the intolerant and hateful characterization of kafirs by Allah and Mohammed.

Islam is 85% political and a description of how Muslims are to treat kafirs. That treatment depends on whether or not Muslims are politically weak or strong.

The tenets of Islam also allow Muslims to lie to kafirs about the meaning and objectives and methods of Islamic dogma and jihad in a way that protects Islam and keeps kafirs (non-Muslims) ignorant of Islam.

Posted by: crypticguise | March 8, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

@oldabandonedbeachhouse,

I suggest that you and any others who have never studied Islam or bothered to read the Koran, Sira and Hadith - do so. Your ignorance of Islam is a necessary objective of Islamic jihad.

If you decide to gain a modicum of knowledge I also suggest that you do so by reading the plethora of available material on Islam. Stop attempting to influence others with your ignorance.

Posted by: crypticguise | March 8, 2011 11:36 AM | Report abuse

@oldabandonedbeachhouse,

I suggest that you and any others who have never studied Islam or bothered to read the Koran, Sira and Hadith - do so. Your ignorance of Islam is a necessary objective of Islamic jihad.

If you decide to gain a modicum of knowledge I also suggest that you do so by reading the plethora of available material on Islam. Stop attempting to influence others with your ignorance.

Posted by: crypticguise | March 8, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I see no reason for the House Homeland Security Committee to hold these hearings. Everyone who has presented a comment here already knows not only what its conclusions will be, but what effect they will have on everybody in the world. It's not as if the purpose of holding hearings were to gather information needed to make informed policy or anything.

I think that's what Ms. Rubin is getting at when she asks the rhetorical question in the final paragraph: "Has the left all of a sudden become anti-social-science?" It put me in mind of the wonderful lyric from Mark Graham's "Have a Nice Day" -
"And we believe in Science
When the Word of God agrees,
And we believe in Science
That destroys our enemies."

Perish the thought that scientific method might provide fuel for the heresy that someone's sacred political opinion is not absolute. Because everyone knows that the right is composed of superstitious cretins, while those on the left are always the epitome of sweet reason.

Posted by: Jambon | March 8, 2011 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Fundamentalist Jews want to be left alone.

Fundamentalist Christians want to convert you.

Fundamentalist Muslims want to kill you.

Any questions?

Posted by: RalphGizzip | March 8, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

One question for Ralph -

That do fundamentalist atheists want?

Posted by: Jambon | March 8, 2011 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Finally: a reason to officially investigate Evangelical Christianity, and its insidious demands for war with Islam over the centuries. Let those hearings begin!! Forget hearings, I want trials!!

Posted by: LawsLuvr | March 8, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

@ LawsLuvr -

Would that be Trial by Jury, Trial by Combat, or Trial by Ordeal?

Posted by: Jambon | March 8, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

@oldabandonedbeachhouse says
"The word "hopefully" is apparently too big for Rick's vocabulary."

Bad news, Beach, the correct usage is "I am hopeful". Hopefully is incorrect. So, want to talk vocabulary? Check your grammar guide.

Posted by: birmingham1 | March 8, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

[W]hat do fundamentalist atheists want?

To the extent that they are also a thoroughgoing Liberals – Liberalism is becoming more and more recognized as a religion, btw – they want to control every aspect of your life, family, money, etc.

Posted by: nvjma | March 8, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"One question for Ralph -

That do fundamentalist atheists want?

Posted by: Jambon"

Presumably that all manifestations of religion be purged from the body politic and the culture that surrounds it. I myself am an atheist, but not the "fundamentalist" sort. I don't believe in a God, but will lay down in traffic to defend someone else's right to practice their religion. That is as long as that particular religion doesn't see fit to separate my head from the rest of me because I don't believe in it.

Peejay, thanks for the clarification on McVeigh. I think we can safely say that he didn't bomb the Murrah building in the name of Christianity, Catholicism or atheism!!

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 8, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"Fundamentalist Jews want to be left alone.

Fundamentalist Christians want to convert you.

Fundamentalist Muslims want to kill you.

Any questions?"

Yes - why do neocons such as Mzz. Rubin insist on open border policies that allow people who want to kill us to sneak into our country?

Hearings on fundie Muslims while MS13 gangs use hatchets and machetes on our teenagers and rape our women seems like a great idea. No wonder congress has such high approval ratings.

Maybe the Rubin-elites should live in our once peaceful neighborhoods for about a week. I'm sure they'll put a little bit higher priority on preventing a sure tower of babble. But of course, they don't live in REAL America, so we know that's not gonna happen.

Posted by: mfray | March 8, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, right? At least that's what Dems believe when Republicans are the focus of whatever investigation/inquiry/audit they dream up.

These hearings are long overdue. There is a significant segment of the American Muslim population that is a threat. Why on earth would you NOT want to investigate that.

No, they'd rather wait until something else blows up (Times Square, Los Angeles, etc were lucky near misses). Then, they'll fall all over themselves blaming Bush and Gitmo. Oh, wait...

Posted by: mattwalter | March 8, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

PS - @crypticguise

While I'm sure we all defer to your superior knowledge and intellect on all matters Islamic, I'll borrow a quote from one of your old rallying songs:

"You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Posted by: mattwalter | March 8, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Wow, they really should hold hearings on those radical Tea Baggers.

/sarcasm off

Posted by: deeprock7 | March 8, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

The left and ALL Americans should be upset about the hearings.

When I think of what King is doing this old saying comes to mind: "First they came for the Communist, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionist, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one to speak out for me."

I'm a firm believer in speaking out often and firmly. What King is doing is wrong, wrong I'm glad to see people "speaking out". If he wanted to have a hearing on ALL terrorism that would be better but to single out a specific group is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Posted by: rlj1 | March 8, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"Bad news, Beach, the correct usage is "I am hopeful". Hopefully is incorrect. So, want to talk vocabulary? Check your grammar guide. "

I seem to remember William Safire's (I am either hopeful or regretful he was speaking tongue-in-cheek, can't decide which) take on the matter was that there is a clear need in Standard English for the word "hopeably" to differentiate the two dissimilar uses for that pesky word "hopefully", analagous to the distinct words "regretfully" and "regrettably". Maybe if Governor (yes, I said it, why not? She has my back!) Palin tweets on it in the future, it will enter our vocabulary as it so properly (there we go!! How about just "hopely"? Nah...) should. I am hopeful for that, her, and the country, but still undecided on the order thereof. But please, please do not repudiate me by calling me that L-word, because I'm just a "cantian" in political philosophy if anything. Similar to denialism.

Posted by: aardunza | March 8, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

My "/sarc" switch is broken, and is (left or right, pick one, quick) in the reader's mind to decide for himself.

Posted by: aardunza | March 8, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

This reminds me of Casey Stengel's admonishment of the early NY Mets baseball team: "Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?" Talking to Major League baseball players yet. Same thing here. Many of these commenters appear to forget the many heinous crimes the Jihadists have already done and/or attempted. What does it take to convince them? A bomb in their pants? They're like the women on the jury who complained that the young man who had allegedly killed his parents should not be tried because he was an "orphan."

Posted by: belairenterprise | March 8, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The term "witch hunt" is comical in this context. Witches don't exist. American Muslims radicalized to commit acts of terror do exist. The FBI seems to bust another plot every few weeks. Of course we should try to understand why this radicalization is occurring and who is promoting and abetting it.

The left lives in their post-modernist world where narratives can determine reality. If we pretend the jihadists aren't there, then we'll be safe. But if we look too closely, we'll offend otherwise peaceful Muslims and they'll start killing us. Or something.

The left thinks the real danger to America is not the various Muslim Brotherhood front groups that support jihad and sharia. In their eyes, honor killings, arranged child marriage, and female genital mutilation are just elements of another culture that deserves our respect. It's those crazy evangelicals who want to pray in school who are the real threat.

Posted by: eoniii | March 8, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Holding hearings on radical Islam in America is no different from holding hearings on the KKK. Both are forms of hatred not conducive to domestic peace and tranquility.

Posted by: willyrob2004 | March 8, 2011 6:11 PM | Report abuse

In Liberal World, if a Christian or Jew performs a henious act which has nothing to do with their Faith, the whole religion and all who are members are indicted. But, if a Muslim performs a heinous act in the name of Allah, and says it is the name of Allah, well, to even bring that up means a person is an Islamaphobe.

After 9/11, the left wondered what we did to piss the Islamists off and make them attack us. King should have pretended that that wa what these hearings were about. The left would have cheered. But, to actually investigate why many Muslims become stark raving lunatics and killers? Well, they can't have that, because that's mean or something

Posted by: NCDevil | March 8, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The notion that Muslims living in America are not a threat to the U.S. because they aren't terrorists is a Trojan Horse, as is the assertions by Obama that the U.S. isn't at war with Islam. Why? Because for 1400 years Islam has been at war with the entire non-Muslim world, obeying orders from their idol Allah via his mouthpiece Muhammad to impose his rule on it whether they like it or not: Allah's Way, AKA Sharia, which makes Islam supreme, and Muslims superior to non-Muslims, who have no freedoms or rights at all. These orders have no expired time limit, and come packed into every Quran, sorry. If Muslims can impose Sharia on America via immigration, high birth rates, and playing wolf in sheep's clothing, Allah will wait for the victory announcement, he's got all the time in the world. Allah and Muhammad, in short, are archenemies of the U.S. Constitution, and America must make a decision to surrender to Islam and throw it all away, or stand up strongly, starting with a moratorium on immigration from the so-called Muslim world, which is just that because it's already been lost, the current Facebook/Twitter revolutions notwithstanding. Everybody who keeps their ears open hears the crowds in Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab lands shouting for Sharia, extermination of Israel, and jihad against the U.S., before or after they restore the caliphate and get nukes, with the Muslims in America as a reliable fifth column, take Maj. Nidal Hasan for instance. Read the Historyscoper's Islam Watch Blog, the blogs of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn, Brigitte Gabriel et al. and quit ostriching.

Posted by: tlwinslow | March 8, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Of course the left is anti-social science. It is the reason the urban black family in the ghetto is worse off now than before LBJ's great society. But dare mention the real problem of welfare checks taking the place of fathers and your labeled a racist by the lefties being turned out of their elite daycare centers.
Now, black is out and muslim is in ~ just another trend the left gloms onto and dreams all is well as long as the source of the problem is hidden.

Posted by: gaphound | March 8, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 8, 2011 10:50 AM

The fact is that 99% of all terrorist acts committed are committed in the name of Islam.
Not Christianity, not Buddhism, not Judiasm and not for the Sun Gods.

_______________________


False. A DOD funded study into all the suicide attacks iver the past 30 years found that in 90-95% of cases, religion was not the motivation.

"This is a highly inconvenient fact for the Left because it puts the lie to the notion that multiculturalism is the end all be all of a happy and thriving global community."

Not the be all and end all, but certainly a contributor. Name one thriving community in which multiculturalism has not been introduced?

I know you long for the good ol' days of white America, but it's history.

"And for those that say that Christians (or whoever) also commit terrorist acts - they can be dismissed as either unserious, or ignorant."

As the DOD study illustrates, it's you who is ignorant. Most terrorist acts are not commited in the *name* of any religion. Even Bin Laden's fatwa against the United States does not mention religion as his motivations.

"Islamic terrorism is ALWAYS in the name of Islam."

As I have demonstrated, that is false. Terrorist attacks by Muslims are almost entirely not related to Islam.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eoniii | March 8, 2011 4:45 PM

"Muslims radicalized to commit acts of terror do exist."

They do, except that those Msulims are not radicalized by religion. Let's look at some examples:

1. Time Square bomber was motivated by drone attacks on Afghanistan
2. The underwear bomber was motivated by drone attacks on Yemen
3. Mohammed Atta and Kaleid Sheik Mohammed were both motivated by the Israeli Palestine conflict.

"The FBI seems to bust another plot every few weeks."

Ever 6 months perhaps, and nearly all of those have been set ups using paid FBI informants who's task it was to trick the defendants into agreeing to carry out a terrorist attack, using money and offering the material to do so.


"If we pretend the jihadists aren't there, then we'll be safe."

And if the jihadists aren't there, then the FBI and the DHS needs to create them in order to have a job.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 8, 2011 12:22 PM

Peejay, thanks for the clarification on McVeigh. I think we can safely say that he didn't bomb the Murrah building in the name of Christianity, Catholicism or atheism!!
_________________________

Similarly, nor did the 19 highjackers who perpetuated 911 do so on the name of Islam. Even the 911 Commission Report makes this observation.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Peejay | March 8, 2011 11:04 AM

All you have to do is look at their religious texts to see that the religions are completely different, with one looking to a non-violent man, Jesus, as its exemplar, and the other to a military leader.
________________________________

That might be true if you ignore the Old Testament, otherwise, the texts are very similar.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Shingo is the perfect example of a clueless liberal making excuses for a violent religious/political movement, and why Islamist love the worldwide left. Islamists know idiot liberals will defend their actions no matter what.

Posted by: NCDevil | March 8, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

King must ask some prominent Muslims whether they support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie; that is, he must ask them if they believe that every Muslim has the duty to kill Salman Rushdie. I have been engaged with prominent Muslims since the Eighties and I can assure you that all of them support that fatwa. Sorry, but there are things about Islam that are abhorrent to Americans and those things are taught in the mosques. Those hate filled beliefs must be weeded out.

Posted by: JohnMarshall3 | March 8, 2011 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Jambon -
As another ex-Catholic atheist and conservative, I can say the following:
- I believe in freedom of conscience (liberty),
- I believe in freedom of expression,
- I believe in the scientific method,
- I believe in the importance of culture in passing along useful lessons learned to offspring,
- I do not believe that all symbols and manifestations of religion be purged from the body politic,* and
- I believe it’s time for another brewski.

* Just because I reject the notion of God (or do not have faith as some might put it) does not mean that I must be as dogmatic in propagating my non-belief as believers are in propagating their beliefs. For one thing, it goes against any notion of freedom of expression, something we all here treasure, I’m sure. For another, I’m in favor of most of the ten commandments while recognizing that even some Christian denominations today consider them to be suggestions to be followed when it’s convenient.

Finally, NCDevil is spot on, and I should pretend to wonder what the Left’s issue is with this hearing, but I can’t. Since so many folks here are into examining motivations, I shall humbly suggest that those on the Left object because they either 1) sympathize with those who don’t like the American experiment that much, or 2) are deathly afraid of the radical jihadists, or 3) are against anything and everything conservatives are for (which is akin to #1).

Posted by: SCMike1 | March 8, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse

... I should pretend to wonder what the Left’s issue is with this hearing, but I can’t. Since so many folks here are into examining motivations, I shall humbly suggest that those on the Left object because they either 1) sympathize with those who don’t like the American experiment that much, or 2) are deathly afraid of the radical jihadists, or 3) are against anything and everything conservatives are for (which is akin to #1).

Posted by: SCMike1 | March 8, 2011 9:06 PM
---------------

Andrew McCarthy provided a very good explanation for the left's sympathy with Islamists - their shared attraction to totalitarianism: "The history of Islam and the modern Left is one of cooperation when there is some obstacle to their divergent concepts of 'social justice' and the perfect society. These are always marriages of convenience, enduring no longer than the enemy that drives them into each other’s arms. But, reliably, it is they — the Islamists and the leftists — who come together when there is a third party in the mix. Rarely will one collude with a common enemy against the other. Today, the common enemy of Islamists and leftists is individual liberty, especially the social, economic, and political freedom guaranteed by the American Constitution, as conceived by the Framers." http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261366/jean-jacques-jihad-andrew-c-mccarthy

This also explains why the left displays more hatred and venom towards the American right and the Tea Party than it does the Islamic fundamentalists who seek the destruction of the pluralistic West.

Posted by: paco33 | March 8, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JohnMarshall3 | March 8, 2011 8:58 PM

I have been engaged with prominent Muslims since the Eighties and I can assure you that all of them support that fatwa.

__________________

And I have known many who think the fatwa is a farce. So who are you going to believe?

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: paco33 | March 8, 2011 9:35 PM

“Andrew McCarthy provided a very good explanation for the left's sympathy with Islamists - their shared attraction to totalitarianism”

Andrew McCarthy clear hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. I haven't seen anyone like in NRO in quote a while. Thanks for the comic relief.

How does McCarthy explain America's close bond with Saudi Arabia and all the dictators throughout the Middle East no doubt – one that had been aided and abetted by the right?

"The history of Islam and the modern Left is one of cooperation when there is some obstacle to their divergent concepts of 'social justice' and the perfect society.”

That would explain why Regan referred to Bin Laden as his gang, not only as freedom fighters, but as freedom fighters who exemplified the same ideology as America's founding fathers.

That would explain why the US has been supporting Jihadists throughout the Bush administration, even Kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old gang, Jundula and Johadistys like Fatah Al Islam.

“Today, the common enemy of Islamists and leftists is individual liberty”

That's quite remarkable seeing as it was our right wing government that introduced the Patriot Act (and who is pushing to make it permanent), as well as warrentless wiretaps, abolition of habeus corpus and the creation of such wonderful notions of “free speech zones”.

“This also explains why the left displays more hatred and venom towards the American right and the Tea Party than it does the Islamic fundamentalists who seek the destruction of the pluralistic West.”

Seeing as Muslims only comprise 1% of our population and the Tea Party 30%, it's obvious that Islamic fundamentalists have no hope in hell of achieving their aims, where are the tea baggers are half way there.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: SCMike1 | March 8, 2011 9:06 PM

I shall humbly suggest that those on the Left object because they either 1) sympathize with those who don’t like the American experiment that much, or 2) are deathly afraid of the radical jihadists, or 3) are against anything and everything conservatives are for (which is akin to #1).

______________________________________

You could of course, simply make a valiant effort to get your right wing brain around the principal of cause and effect.

For some reason, right wingers are universally unable to understand it. Or perhaps they do, but can't allow it enter the debate, and it would tear a hole in their argument.

And while I agree that true conservatives are against anything and everything conservatives do share an ideology for the American experiment, it stands to reason that the right has long ago abandoned those principals.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 10:55 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: tlwinslow | March 8, 2011 6:29 PM

Allah and Muhammad, in short, are archenemies of the U.S. Constitution

________________________

As a Evangelical Christians, Christian Zionists, Tea Baggers, necons, and most of those on the right.

"America must make a decision to surrender to Islam and throw it all away"

Seeing as Muslims are about 1% of the population, that's pretty alarmist, but what woudl you suggest be done about it? Should all Muslims be extradited out of the US?

The moratorium on immigration for Muslims doesn't solve your problem of home grown jihadists does it?

"Everybody who keeps their ears open hears the crowds in Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab lands shouting for Sharia, extermination of Israel, and jihad against the U.S"

That's interesting. All the neocons and those on the right have been praising the fact that the US and Israel has not been mentioned at all during these demonstrations.

"Read the Historyscoper's Islam Watch Blog, the blogs of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn, Brigitte Gabriel et al. and quit ostriching."

Wow, you're the first person who ha ever cited Pam Gellar! While the rest of the right wing Islamophobic community is to embarrassed to be associated with this fascist loving wilder of hatred, you wear your bigotry out and proud,

Good for you.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 11:03 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that this rampant Islamphobia among those on the right is born of a sense of resentment and inferiority. What they are struggling to come to terms with is the fact that their beloved American experiment is headed over a cliff and in times of economic hardship, the racism and xenophobia become widespread.

These people know that those countries and civilizations that they have been belittling and denigrating as backward and sub human, will still be there long after America has descended into a 2nd world country, if indeed the US has not been fractured into multiple peaces by secessionist movements by then.

These people are also aware that the one thing keeping the US afloat these days is the fact that the Saudis continue to trade oil in US dollars. They hate Islam and they hate Muslims because they can't face the fact that a Muslim state is what stands between them and economic oblivion.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Shingo1 -

Nice try, no cigar. We right-wing knuckle-draggers don’t suffer from Islamphobia, but are concerned about the radical extremists who have expressed a fervent desire to end our way of life by ending our lives. They’ve done everything to announce their intentions except to purchase ad space in Times Square, preferring to blow that up, along with the rest of New York City, too. We understand that most Muslims abhor the extremists’ intent and actions, but wonder how the rest of us can assist them in discovering what prompts US-born citizens to become radicalized.

This is a bit different from the one-offs like Ted Kaczynski or Bill Ayers, the leftists who decided that bombs were the way to win an argument, but there was no common denominator other than collectivist orientation; they did not attend the same churches, summer camps, or whatever as far as we know. The jihadists seem to share several characteristics, and it would be useful to identify them so that those in the Muslim community and elsewhere -- dare I suggest the military’s physician-screening program -- can be on the lookout for potential wackos and take appropriate action.

Posted by: SCMike1 | March 8, 2011 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Oooops! I meant to include the following.

Furthermore, who but the right-wingers are trying to get our finances under control, at the federal and state levels? We are concerned -- perhaps most do fear -- that the American Experiment will fail because folks cannot in fact govern themselves, but need a monarch or an elite to rule every aspect of our lives.

Posted by: SCMike1 | March 8, 2011 11:57 PM | Report abuse

SCMike1

“Nice try, no cigar.”

Not to worry, I don't smoke.

Anyone with a brain can see through your “concern” about your life and way of life. It's an odd phenomena that the country with the most powerful military in human history also happens to be home to people who are the most frightened. I travel a great deal and nowhere in the world do I meet people as paranoid as those in the US, and that includes Israelis.

Islam doesn't pose any threat to your life and way of life, and you know it. What those on the far right feed of is hatred and fear, it is the elixir that fuels your tribalism. If it wasn't Islam in your sights, it would be no doubt be something else.

“They’ve done everything to announce their intentions except to purchase ad space in Times Square”

So did Baghdad Bob, but no one took him seriously, because we knew very well he had no hope in hell of ever achieving that objective.

There's no mystery as to what prompts US-born citizens, or anyone for that matter, to become radicalized. The information is well documented. 80% of those captured trying to enter Iraq (to join the insurgency), were people who had no history of activism but were radicalized by the occupation of Iraq. Many of them revealed that it was the images from Abu Graid that tipped them over the edge. Most of the world reacted with disgust to those images, but understandably, some were outraged. I imagine many Americans would have been outraged had those naked men piled on top of each other been white Americans.

“The jihadists seem to share several characteristics, and it would be useful to identify them so that those in the Muslim community and elsewhere -- dare I suggest the military’s physician-screening program -- can be on the lookout for potential wackos and take appropriate action.”

They've been talking about this for years,. Every time there's a Columbine type event or the like, people propose a screening program to identify the warning signs, but oddly enough, the simplest solutions are always rejected. We could put an end to the hatred that motivate Jihadists, but we don't want to because our ruling class is not prepared to give up it's addiction to global hegemony.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: SCMike1 | March 8, 2011 11:57 PM

Furthermore, who but the right-wingers are trying to get our finances under control, at the federal and state levels?
_____________________________________

Talk to about financial control when you decide to reign in the 1.2 trillion annual defense expenditure.

"We are concerned -- perhaps most do fear -- that the American Experiment will fail because folks cannot in fact govern themselves, but need a monarch or an elite to rule every aspect of our lives."

Yeah right. Strange how this only become an issue when the Republicans are out of power. Having said that, I am more than aware that the left is just a guilty of this (the antiwar movement went into a coma when Obama was elected).

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Tim McVeigh was nothing but a fairly "intelligent" methamphetamine user who got stupid evil ideas with his meth-smoking buddies and that ridiculous world's-end author printed in his Soldier of Fortune magazines. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: aardunza | March 9, 2011 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Shingo1 -

I agree that there are frightened folks here, but they’re on the left; don’t you folks on the left bemoan the fact that we on the right cling to our guns? Can you extend that thought a step or two to conclude that they’re loaded and we’re ready? The right-wingers would just like everyone to know what the scope of the threat is, how concerned we should be, while the left is taking the ostrich approach, and sand is not good for proper ear hygiene,

Why do you think Americans were not outraged at Abu Ghraib? I sure was, and it had nothing to do with the color / ethnic background of the abused prisoners. I was appalled that US military personnel would engage in such behavior, especially to impress a girlfriend on her birthday. You’re not projecting, are you?

There’s no question that King’s hearing is controversial and, unfortunately, the wackos have started with the death threats:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/148269-king-receives-threats-on-eve-of-his-hearing

//Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) is receiving a barrage of threatening phone calls, some from overseas, which has led to increased police protection ahead of Thursday’s hearing on the possible radicalization of American Muslims.

King told The Hill that he’s not concerned about his safety and that the hearing, which will examine whether the Muslim community in the U.S. is being targeted by terrorist groups to carry out attacks, will proceed as scheduled.//

You’re not going to let others determine what you’re going to do, especially if you sincerely believe that you’ve every right to do whatever, right? So why should the US let others determine what we should do? Jefferson found the actions of the Barbary pirates offensive, so he took action, enabling the USMC to add “shores of Tripoli” to their anthem. The nutters will fuss about whatever we do, so why not do the right thing and ignore them? If they consider that grounds for attacks on the US, they can get in line and some day some Congressperson with cajones will have hearings on their survivors and assigns, no?

Buck up, man, and enjoy the hearings. I’m sure they’ll be on C-Span…

Posted by: SCMike1 | March 9, 2011 1:18 AM | Report abuse

The Pew study on American Muslims from 2007 showed mostly good news, such as that US Muslims are richer and more assimilated than those in Europe, and a large percentage have positive views of the US.

But the trends are a bit worrying:
"[A] greater percentage of younger Muslims in the U.S. think of themselves first as Muslims, rather than primarily as Americans (60% vs. 41% among Muslim Americans ages 30 and older). Moreover, more than twice as many Muslim Americans under age 30 as older Muslims believe that suicide bombings can be often or sometimes justified in the defense of Islam (15% vs. 6%)."

Not coincidentally, the younger generation is also more religious. Worth a hearing (in light of Al-Alwaki, Fort Hood, and Times Square)? I'd say so. Hell, even Ruth Marcus is on board.

Posted by: pbaseoul | March 9, 2011 1:20 AM | Report abuse

"You could of course, simply make a valiant effort to get your right wing brain around the principal of cause and effect. "

Is "cause and effect" a school somewhere? The principal at our school was soooo fat we couldn't get all our brains around him, right or left. And no, his name wasn't Christie, but my sister's is, which is neither here nor there but strictly factual.

Posted by: aardunza | March 9, 2011 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Shingo wrote: "What they are struggling to come to terms with is the fact that their beloved American experiment is headed over a cliff and in times of economic hardship, the racism and xenophobia become widespread."

Your factual inaccuracy and projection-filled psychoanalysis aside, thanks for that little window into how the left views America: "their" beloved American experiment, not "our." (Oh, but don't question their patriotism!)

"You could of course, simply make a valiant effort to get your right wing brain around the principal of cause and effect. For some reason, right wingers are universally unable to understand it."
And yet I know that it's spelled "principle." I'm also able to perceive cause and effect very clearly in the violent teachings of radical imams and the violent actions of their followers, as is anyone whose brain isn't in thrall to multi-culti dogma.

Posted by: pbaseoul | March 9, 2011 1:29 AM | Report abuse

See, the good Governor from NJ is smart, has a great sense of humor, and would like my little joke. Same goes for our own great "black-lite poster" Shingo (sorry)!

The Governor can proactively get a handle on the tidal wave of fat jokes coming his way from the left if and/or when he runs for President by telling a few himself opening the stump speech, with all due deference to the dignity of the office.

Talk about a thread highjacking! (to go with the New Jersey background.)

Posted by: aardunza | March 9, 2011 1:37 AM | Report abuse

SCMike1,

“don’t you folks on the left bemoan the fact that we on the right cling to our guns? Can you extend that thought a step or two to conclude that they’re loaded and we’re ready?”

Perhaps, but it seems to me that those with nothing to fear aren't the ones who feel the need to cling to guns.

“The right-wingers would just like everyone to know what the scope of the threat is”

Scope of the threat to what? Every one of us has about as much chance of dying from a terrorist attack as we do from being struck by lightning. And how has any Jihadist come close to threatening our way of life, especially when you consider that the real threat (the financial crisis and our rocketing debt) is of our own making?

I am not disputing that you and many Americans were not outraged by Abu Graib; what I failed to communicate was that the outrage would have been an order of magnitude greater had the victims been Americans. That's not an indictment on Americans, that's human nature. The point is that if those victims had been Americans, the public would have demanded a severe and swift response, and rightly so. Yet, we've been indoctrinated to perceive any such reprisals from Muslims and being driven entirely by Islam.

“So why should the US let others determine what we should do?”

There's 2 ways to answer that:
1.When it comes to our interests, and I do mean the interests of the American public (not the Pentagon), then we have no choice but to act accordingly.
2.In doing so, we must also be prepared to deal with the consequences. That means being honest about “they they hate us”, rather than using a broad brush and dismissing those who are affected as religious nutters.
So when we launch a drone strike and kill 30 civilians, it may mean a great deal to us, but it does to those who's family, friends and countrymen were killed and we have to face the fact that we've potentially crated dozens, if not hundreds of enemies instantly. That doesn't make them nutters or Islamists wanting to get to heaven and get it on with their 72 virgins.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 2:23 AM | Report abuse

"Fundamentalist Christians want to convert you."

Just prance around with a picture of Dan Snyder outside my synagogue. I may go Catholic because of that guy.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 8:45 AM | Report abuse

The fascist Tea Party is destroying this country that I love.

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | March 9, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"...This is an oppotunity, I think Chairman King has shown excellent courage in bringing up this issue...and he is not saying he is targeting Muslims or the faith of Islam. If anything he is saying, and what our organization is saying:

This is our opportunity as Muslims to lead the charge. The best way to melt away fear of Muslims of Islamaphobia...is for America to see us taking ownership, taking reponsibility fro fixing the problem.

...There is this denial with many of the leadership within the Muslim communitis that needs to be shed so we can start to deal with the ideologies that feed this. we haven't even begun this conversation,and that's what these hearings are all about."

-Dr Jhudi Jasser, American Muslim, who is testifying on Thurs.

THE FACTS:

From The Congressional Research Service:

There have been 43 homegrown violent jihadist plots or attacks in the United States since September 11, 2001 (9/11).

As part of a much-discussed apparent expansion of terrorist activity in the United States, between May 2009 and November 2010, arrests were made for 22 “homegrown,” jihadist-inspired terrorist plots by American citizens or legal permanent residents of the United States.

Two of these resulted in attacks. Most of the 2009-2010 homegrown plots likely reflect a trend in jihadist terrorist activity away from schemes directed by core members of significant terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

...The term “jihadist” describes radicalized individuals using Islam as an
ideological and/or religious justification for their belief in the establishment of a global caliphate, or jurisdiction governed by a Muslim civil and religious leader known as a caliph.

Posted by: James87 | March 9, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

And Rep. King is getting death threats about this hearing... making the joke more true.

Islam is the Religion of Peace; and if you disagree I WILL KILL YOU!

When your defense of the peacefulness of your religion hinges on death threats for any who might question it... I'm thinking I'm going to end up getting death threats. Because I've definitely got some questions... once I'm done laughing at your idiocy.

Maybe liberals believe in the inherent peaceful and kind natures of those who will threaten to kill you at the drop of a hat; but it that a logcial... ooh, that gives me an idea.

The Tea Party members are really working to make government force equal incomes on all people... you're just not seeing the "big picture" so you liberals should support them to the best of your abilities.

** What, anyone stupid enough to believe the "Religion of Peace" nonsense in the face of death threats will believe anything, right? Especially if it's stupid, illogical, and irrational. You expect me to feel bad for tricking complete idiots? I'm not proud (as it's not difficult) but I'm not going to feel bad either. **

Posted by: gekkobear | March 9, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"So when we launch a drone strike and kill 30 civilians, it may mean a great deal to us, but it does to those who's family, friends and countrymen were killed..."

The correct usage is "those whose family, friends and countrymen were killed..."

"Who's" is a contraction of "who is", distinct from "whose." I have faith you can break the habit with application, Sir. Now rewrite that sentence one hundred times! (Kidding :-))

Posted by: aardunza | March 9, 2011 4:20 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