Doctor Fate wrote:So, to follow your logic: if King won't apologize, he's a hypocrite or worse, and therefore no investigation of radical Islam should be initiated?

I don't think logic is your strong point, honey.

The first part is right - he is a hypocrite or worse. The second part does not follow. I have said that there is certainly nothing wrong with an investigation of radicalisation among Muslims. The issue is how that investigation takes place.

Look, I understand the IRA was a bad group of people. I understand they murdered innocent civilians. However, I fail to understand how if King approved of them, apparently, he must be indifferent to Islamism. That is a leap of logic.

No, it means he's indifferent to certain types of terrorism. The leap of logic is purely your own.

He is responsible to defend American lives. He is not responsible for British lives. I would agree that lending moral or financial support to any terror organization is morally repugnant. That said, why should he not be able to investigate one because he aided/abetted/supported a different group? That is nonsense.

Because it undermines the whole thing. Sass has already made this point, and you and Tom don't seem to get it.

Islam is 100% integral to the Islamic terror we have experienced. So, there is no reason not to investigate it.

Indeed. But is a set of public hearings run in Congress, inviting a limited set of witnesses and with a political slant to it really the best way to get a decent investigation done?

Here's the problem - reading comprehension. Neither I nor Sass have said that no investigations should take place. But you seem to be ignoring where we've actually said the opposite, and making the leap that opposing King and his little sideshow means we oppose all investigations.

If it's not a terrible inability to read properly and follow our arguments, then it's a dishonest attempt to make it look like we are on the side of the Islamists.

Just out of interest Steve, do you think it's appropriate that a man who has several terrorists as personal friends, has raised money for a terrorist organisation and who refuses to condemn the murder of civilians by his personal friends is appointed to head the Congressional committee most closely associated with counter-terrorism ? Or is that all cool because the IRA didn't kill any Americans ?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, to follow your logic: if King won't apologize, he's a hypocrite or worse, and therefore no investigation of radical Islam should be initiated?

I don't think logic is your strong point, honey.

Leave your man-crush out of this.

He is responsible to defend American lives. He is not responsible for British lives. I would agree that lending moral or financial support to any terror organization is morally repugnant. That said, why should he not be able to investigate one because he aided/abetted/supported a different group? That is nonsense.

Because it undermines the whole thing. Sass has already made this point, and you and Tom don't seem to get it.

Because there's nothing to get. Look, if his investigation is undermined, that's his problem. His alleged hypocrisy doesn't negate the whole process by itself.

Islam is 100% integral to the Islamic terror we have experienced. So, there is no reason not to investigate it.

Indeed. But is a set of public hearings run in Congress, inviting a limited set of witnesses and with a political slant to it really the best way to get a decent investigation done?

Please. If you applied that same standard to the healthcare bill, you'd be screaming about it.

It is politics. So what? About 99% of what Congress and the President do are all about politics.

However, in this case it is possible that something of value may come to light.

Here's the problem - reading comprehension. Neither I nor Sass have said that no investigations should take place. But you seem to be ignoring where we've actually said the opposite, and making the leap that opposing King and his little sideshow means we oppose all investigations.

No, the problem is that you've not explained why King's investigation is such a problem. You've presumed that it is, but you've not demonstrated that it is. No amount of huffing and puffing about past associations will negate the validity of investigating current problems in the US.

If it's not a terrible inability to read properly and follow our arguments, then it's a dishonest attempt to make it look like we are on the side of the Islamists.

It's neither. I'm not surprised that a fool like you would set up such a dichotomy, but there are other options. You've got one fact: Peter King did some bad things--or rather supported those who did horrible things. From there, you've leapt to the argument that his investigation is without merit. That's not my problem. It's your inability to articulate a viewpoint. I've read what you've said. I'm not being dishonest. If the guy's name was "Peter Smith" and he was a Mormon from Kansas, you would not be making these arguments. You're attacking King on the basis of past wrongs as a means to discredit the current investigation. One has no connection with the other--no matter how much you protest that it does.

Sassenach wrote:Just out of interest Steve, do you think it's appropriate that a man who has several terrorists as personal friends, has raised money for a terrorist organisation and who refuses to condemn the murder of civilians by his personal friends is appointed to head the Congressional committee most closely associated with counter-terrorism ? Or is that all cool because the IRA didn't kill any Americans ?

I don't think he should be in Congress, if true. Then again, with a minor variation or two, we could say the same thing about the current President.

So, I'll tell you what: if you call for Obama's resignation, I'll call for King's.

Was it a waste of time?
Turns out yes it was, see we agree Dan!

Why are you arguing with something we agree on?
The difference is we did not know it for certain and the problem is serious enough that we had nothing to lose in hearing it. However, the unsubstantiated attacks on King were nothing more than a smokescreen. The liberal cause does not want to link radical Islam (not every Muslim, but rather the extremists, you see, there is a difference) with terrorism so up popped this King is a terror supporter clap.

As Danivon pointed out (as did I) the person heading such a hearing could make a sham out of things and as I suggested, we should watch him closely. Welllll, the assumptions that he could not hold an impartial hearing turned out to be dead wrong. The claim that the person hosting it DOES matter really should have been CAN matter, turns out it was not a sham at all (just a waste of time) The how and who really didn't matter did it? The claims were flat out WRONG, can you guys not acknowledge the obvious? Face facts, you guys were wrong, you want to embrace guilt by association when it suits your goals but you simply can't have it both ways can you?

This "argument" is and has been so obviously flawed and partisan it's incredible how some others bought into this personal attack.

This is ridiculous. King stayed at the home of the main organisational planner for all IRA bombings in Belfast, a man who therefore was directly responsible for every terrorist atrocity in the city. He then invited the man's wife to Washington after he'd been convicted of murder and personally gave her a tour of Congress. He was a leading figure in NORAID, which for many years was openly raising funds to enable the IRA to purchase weapons (many of which came from such staunch friends of America as Colonel Gaddafi). He's on record as comparing Gerry Adams to George Washington. This is in a completely different ballpark to Obama's vague connections to a man who was once a part of the Weather Underground amny years before Obama ever met him and who never killed anybody. There's no moral equivalence here at all.

Tell you what Steve, how about you just drop the political blinkers for a change and admit that Peter King is a first rate scumbag ? Is it really so hard ? I can assure you that if he were a Democrat I'd feel exactly the same way about him. In fact I'm fairly sure there must be a few Dems who have similar backgrounds and while I can't be bothered to look them up if ever i come across them randomly I'll be happy to criticise them in equally strident terms. This doesn't have to be a party political point, were talking about a man who raised money for murderers.

and supposed catholic charities that fronted for IRA support were indeed investigated and prosecuted in the US. We didn't complain about that back then, it's the same thing now, that was a rather poor analogy that only helps support our side...
http://irishecho.com/?p=52503

..and who is supporting Kings past? I did not see one single person here support the "Scum bag" I think we agree on that. But look at how things went down in the hearing and please explain how his past affected this hearing, you can't (yet those criticizing him have not acknowledged this and continue to assert how correct they are ....when they have been proven WRONG. Don't think of it as supporting King, the guy stinks on ice, you are simply acknowledging his evil past did NOT affect this hearing.

That last point was clearly addressed at Steve who made a lame attempt to suggest that Obama is just as bad as King, which is clearly nonsense.

But setting that aside, just because you tell me I'm WRONG it capital letters it doesn't make it any more true. The stink of rank hypocrisy tends to undermine the credibility of this inquiry does it not ? If Bill Clinton were to head an inquiry into marital infedelity would you be inclined to take it seriously ?

Sassenach wrote:This is ridiculous. King stayed at the home of the main organisational planner for all IRA bombings in Belfast, a man who therefore was directly responsible for every terrorist atrocity in the city. He then invited the man's wife to Washington after he'd been convicted of murder and personally gave her a tour of Congress. He was a leading figure in NORAID, which for many years was openly raising funds to enable the IRA to purchase weapons (many of which came from such staunch friends of America as Colonel Gaddafi). He's on record as comparing Gerry Adams to George Washington. This is in a completely different ballpark to Obama's vague connections to a man who was once a part of the Weather Underground amny years before Obama ever met him and who never killed anybody. There's no moral equivalence here at all.

The connection is more than "vague." Furthermore, Obama went to a church that preached hatred for 20 years.

Tell you what Steve, how about you just drop the political blinkers for a change and admit that Peter King is a first rate scumbag ?

Right after you go after Obama.

This doesn't have to be a party political point, were talking about a man who raised money for murderers.

As opposed to a man who takes money from them? Ayers contributed to Obama's campaign for State Senate. Did Obama return the money?

Sassenach wrote:That last point was clearly addressed at Steve who made a lame attempt to suggest that Obama is just as bad as King, which is clearly nonsense.

Just because you say it is "clearly nonsense" doesn't make it true.

So remind me again how many people Bill Ayers blew up with high explosives, shot with automatic weapons or smashed in the kneecaps of in punishment beatings ? Because all this and more was carried out by King's personal friends during the time that he was actively raising money to enable it.

Because of luck and incompetence, Ayers and associates killed fellow terrorists. It's still murder.

sass

If Bill Clinton were to head an inquiry into marital infedelity would you be inclined to take it seriously ?

That depends on the definition of the word "seriously".

Tom

and supposed catholic charities that fronted for IRA support were indeed investigated and prosecuted in the US

From his link:

“At the symposium in Abu Dhabi, American officials described that process, citing examples of how Roman Catholic charities had been prosecuted for funneling money to the Irish Republican Army,” the Times report stated.

Yes, the were investigated and prosecuted. Just as most of the "jihadists" who've been prosecuted since 9/11 were also funneling funds and have been prosecuted.And some, who were unknowingly supporting organizations that used their funds for terorism were educated about where the funds went and found other charities...
But there wasn't a congressional hearing where some wingnut congressman brought up witness to declare to the world that the Catholic theology was evil and that terrorists were being bred in Sunday Schools. Although to be fair, its a pretty sure thing that most of the funds were coming from people who attended Mass regularly...Does that not make the same connection King seeks to make / and Apparently you and Steve Tom?

Of there's anything really clear here, its that the purpose of a congressional Hearing is not truly investigative. Its political. Its stage craft. Its an attempt to bring atention to the attitude of the chair and his committee. In this case its intent was to demonize all Muslims.
But, they don't seem to have accomplished that have they?

Excuse me guys
But King (again, not endorsing the guy) did not carry on any sort of improper hearing. If Bill Clinton were the head of the nations "marriage infidelity center", then the situation is similar, he should not head such an organization but since he does, yes, he deserves to take part in those hearings. When he oversees these proceedings you best watch him and how he handles it, that would be certainly expected. I suggested the same thing here, the guys position is certainly one that should oversee such a hearing, argue all you want about how he should not be in charge, but that's a different matter. It now boils down to how the hearings were handled and nobody has anything negative to say about that. So yes, I am correct in stating you are WRONG if you still insist on concentrating on a different issue and ignoring the basic facts at hand.

Ricky, you are again spouting opinions and making statements that you want to appear as factual. Please point to where in this hearing anyone at all "declared to the world that the Muslim theology was evil and that terrorists were being bred in Islamic Schools" it simply did not happen, Please point me to where in the hearing anyone, anyone at all attempted to "demonize all Muslims" that is a patent lie, more nonsense you are making up, Face it, face the facts, this was no witch hunt as you want us to believe, please point to how horrible this was, enlighten me please. (but use facts not opinions, use things you actually read yourself not what some liberal blog is talking about) Do us a favor and tell us where in this hearing anything was said that you are claiming, this entire line of yours is pure liberal garbage and you (once again) can not support your position with fact and instead turn to outright lies.