However, how much did Priest and Pastors encourage, entice and/or enable their congregations actively participate in the activities of the IRA and/or UVF, UDA?

And, for example, on the other side: rev. Ian Paisley.

archduke

What we hear in the news is how Imams in certain mosques are actively preaching jihad and actively recruiting young Muslims to Jihad.

But you don't hear in the news is much context about how prevalent this is, or whether or not there are isolated cases. Or who actually influences those few who make the decision to commit terrorism.
Would it be surprising to find that access to the Internet and a handful of hate inciting web powered fanatics is the common denominator in many if not most of the attempts at violence? And that the kind of extreme preaching that is suppossed to occur in American Mosques is vanishingly rare ?
Its like the list of "terrorist events" conducted by Muslims since 9/11 that is often cited . Included in this list are cases where people tried to fund terrorist organization, or organizations with suspected terorist links. I concede that is an act of terrorism but not quite in the same league as an attempted bombing or random shooting. (It sure didn't seem to be an issue in the US for years, while the IRA was getting their funding there) And yet when someone says there have been 44 terrorist events since 9/11 they don't mention that most were episodes of attempted funding and only 4 were successful attempts at violence. And all those lone wolf shooters. Events which, from a distance, don't look all that different from any of the dozens of mass shootings indured over the years.
Hearings like King hosted aren't intended to actually educated the public or learn anything. They are intended to incite the public to hatred.

The Claudy bombings in Northern Ireland that Fax linked to is an example that goes in the other direction. In an attempt to avoid inciting further hatred, there wasn't a public hearing into the involvement of The Church in the troubles. With the benefit of time it now appears that some priests and/or ministars may have gotten away with terrorist activity. But in the interests of allowing healing to take place perhaps that was a sacrifice that was required?
I'm not sure about that because I'd like to think there is justice for all... But I think it illustrates the concern for the general healing and well being of the community that is ill served by men like King, and especially when men like King gain the power to build a public platform that he hopes legitimizes his message.

Sassenach wrote: The government deliberately covered up evidence of active involvement in supporting terrorism because they didn't want to cause even more trouble than was already taking place, but there are several stories out there of priests who were known to the security services to be active members of the IRA but who were left alone out of political expediency.

This is the problem then Sass because while we in this country understood that one side in the dispute was catholic and the other protestant, there was no information of active involvement and/or encouragement by the priestly class. Therefore, it is a kind of subconsciences belief that the dispute was more nationalistic/cultural in nature and the religious difference was coincidental and less relevant.

However, since it is well know that members of the priestly class in Islam, however small, actively preaches and encourages acts of violence, it is easier for those of to consider the issue to be primarlily, if not entirely, religious in nature.

This in turn allows one to justify differences in the moral equivalencies.

rickyp wrote:archduke
But you don't hear in the news is much context about how prevalent this is, or whether or not there are isolated cases. Or who actually influences those few who make the decision to commit terrorism.

I agree with you completely ricky. That is actually the problem with news today. It is all about the shock and awe. Most news programs are about entertaining and not about informing.

rickyp wrote:Would it be surprising to find that access to the Internet and a handful of hate inciting web powered fanatics is the common denominator in many if not most of the attempts at violence? And that the kind of extreme preaching that is suppossed to occur in American Mosques is vanishingly rare ?

Would it surprise me? Not in the least. But when you have the Attorney General of the U.S. and the Secretrary of Homeland Security quoted as saying the biggest threat to the U.S. not is domestic terrorism from radicalized muslim youth combined with the reports of radical muslims, it must be looked into

rickyp wrote:Hearings like King hosted aren't intended to actually educated the public or learn anything. They are intended to incite the public to hatred.

Says you. However, you are biased because you do not like Republicans. Therefore you are predisposed to think negatively on anything they do.

I don't think I'd go so far as Ricky in saying that the hearings are deliberately intended to incite hatred. What I would say though is that they're certainly not intended to shed any real light on the causes of radicalisation. It seems to me like King is intending to tap into a particular constituency who already mistrust Muslims in order to burnish his credentials as a strongman and defender of America. Like I've said all along, I do think that understanding the causes of radicalisation is very important, but this is clearly not the way to go about that and has great potential to be counterproductive. By setting up what has all the appearances of a witchhunt King could be doing a great disservice because it may simply cause US Muslims to feel victimised. This could add weight to the message that the radicals are trying to preach and cause the Muslim community to close ranks in the face of what they perceive as a hostile government. That's not a very smart way of gathering the facts IMO, but then I don't think King is really interested in the facts.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Dan and Sass,

Excuse my ignorance on the Troubles but did Catholic Priests include sermons calling for Catholics to go out and join/support the IRA? I mean this as a serious question. We in this country understand that the Troubles were a conflict between Catholics and Protestants. However, how much did Priest and Pastors encourage, entice and/or enable their congregations actively participate in the activities of the IRA and/or UVF, UDA?

Well, we've had a few examples. A small number of times it will have happened. It's also believed that churches were used to store weapons from time to time.

Because I think this is the comparison Tom is attempting to make. What we hear in the news is how Imams in certain mosques are actively preaching jihad and actively recruiting young Muslims to Jihad.

Ah, you hear in the news. This is the problem, What did you hear, and how reliable is the news? Are you thinking of particular items, or a result of cumulative snippets?

How much influence on your perception comes, perhaps, from news reports about statements like these:

"no American Muslim leaders are cooperating in the war on terror,"

"80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. . . . I'll stand by that number of 85 percent. This is an enemy living amongst us."

"There are too many mosques in this country... There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them."

All made by the same person, a Representative King...

danivon wrote:

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.

I never said that it did. The process is flawed by dint of it being a Congressional Hearing, and because it has a clear political flavour to it.

Political flavor? That's rich.

Like the Administration virtually refusing to acknowledge radical Islam is a problem? Like the Administration claiming each attack is a "lone wolf" and a "one-off?"

There has been nothing serious about the Obama approach to domestic terror. Who else would investigate this if not Congress?

King’s past links are just another reason why any conclusions coming out of it would be suspect. But Tom agrees that it was a waste of time, so sounds to me like the ‘whole process’ was negated. Again, you cling to the idea that King’s links to Ireland are the only reason being put forward for the hearings being a pile. That is not the case, it’s just one among several, but one that is going to annoy Sass and I for what would hope were obvious reasons.

And politicians are the only, or best, people to run investigations?

No, but we have an Administration, led by Eric Holder's Justice Department and Napolitano's Homeland Security, that steadfastly refuses to treat radical Islam as more dangerous than homeschooling parents.

In response to your snottiness, please provide any indication that Obama and his administration take domestic terrorism from radical Islam seriously. I see no such indication.

[quote=”Danivon”]That is not why I disagree with the hearings. I see them as politicking by King, as a way of making a name for himself and I also think that setting it up in this way appears designed to annoy Muslim Americans rather than to investigate why some become radicalised

you are telling me that this is somehow too unclear to follow? [/quote]

No. I am saying you have zero evidence his goal is to "annoy Muslim Americans." Sure, he's politicking. So is Obama and so are his minions. However, King is not pretending we don't have a Muslim problem.

Or on page 4 where I said:[quote=”Danivon"]I don’t disagree that the issue of radicalisation should be investigated. I’m less that convinced that the forum of Congressional Hearing is the best way to go about it

was that not in plain enough English for you? Yes, I also have a problem with King being the one who set it up and runs it because of his past links (and his failure as far as I can see to disavow his part in violence when he was involved), but you are flat out wrong to state that this is the only basis for my arguments.[/quote]

It may be the best way to handle it. Why? Because we have an Administration that sees enemies everywhere except where they actually are.

So, if you can understand what you read, can you explain to me why you are indeed being dishonest about my position?

You've not established the basis for your question, so I reject it.

If you can’t, then please tell me what it is that is so difficult in those passages to understand. I assume you have at least attained grade-school level English comprehension, and so can point out what is so inarticulate.

I won't assume you have a grade-school education because you are acting like a moron. Then again, that's par for the course.

Isn't it at least a bit funny how we have continued posts about how this hearing was all about incitement, we hear all about how King could not run an unbiased hearing, we hear them complain about these "certainties" yet the hearing is over and they can not point to one single issue to support these claims. Not claims made before the hearings where they simply assume this to be the case, no, these "certainties" are still made after the fact. They are factually incorrect but they keep a comin' don't they?

C'mon guys, the hearing is over, it sure looked to be unbiased and quite open and even handed. Granted it did little but how often do these things do much at all? (I point to that youth violence issue you guys have no problem with) Your arguments are making no sense, what could have happened is not what did happen.

danivon wrote:Well, we've had a few examples. A small number of times it will have happened. It's also believed that churches were used to store weapons from time to time.

Well, then read my response to Sass.

danivon wrote:Ah, you hear in the news. This is the problem, What did you hear, and how reliable is the news? Are you thinking of particular items, or a result of cumulative snippets?

How much influence on your perception comes, perhaps, from news reports about statements like these:

"no American Muslim leaders are cooperating in the war on terror,"

"80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. . . . I'll stand by that number of 85 percent. This is an enemy living amongst us."

"There are too many mosques in this country... There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them."

All made by the same person, a Representative King...

Well, first off, I have never seen those particular quotes. Further, read my response to Ricky. I have have more then half a brain cell and particularly low opinions of television journalism and the current Administration staff. Therefore, I put as much weight on them as I do on my cat's opinion. So quite you snide snarky crap. I am pretty sure everybody on this board has said that King was not the guy to be running the hearings.

Doctor Fate wrote:There has been nothing serious about the Obama approach to domestic terror. Who else would investigate this if not Congress?

When you say there's nothing serious about Obama's approach, what exactly do you mean ? That he doesn't give speeches about homemade muslim extremism or that he's not funding/directing the FBI or whatever agency is appropriate to investigate it ?
If it's the later i understand that you are upset, if it's the former than i think it's just a matter of approach.
People are very touchy about their religion and any sort of critique often leads to them getting defensive and angry. So it might actually be a dumb strategy to pester the average Muslim by confronting him with the absurdity of his believe system or what others make of it.

Here's the thing. Kings hearing got a lot of press. But did many people pay attention to actual attempts to define the scope of the subject.
For instance:

CNN) -- The terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim- Americans has been exaggerated, according to a study released Wednesday by researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
A small number of Muslim-Americans have undergone radicalization since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the study found. It compiled a list of 139 individuals it categorized as "Muslim-American terrorism offenders" who had become radicalized in the U.S. in that time -- a rate of 17 per year.
That level is "small compared to other violent crime in America, but not insignificant," according to the study, titled "Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans."
To be included on the list, an offender had to have been wanted, arrested, convicted or killed in connection with terrorism-related activities since 9/11 -- and have lived in the United States, regardless of immigration status, for more than a year prior to arrest

.
source: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/mu ... ion.study/
Its a far cry from Tom's calculations of the scale, and a real stretch to assume that 17 people a year are the fruit of a major attempt to radicalize Muslim by their clergy. Frankly if a large number of them are actively trying to radicalize their worshippers their doing a shitty job if only 17 a year are acting out...

And far be it from anyone to suggest with actual facts that Muslim terrorism is the #1 source of terroism in the US as Tom and Steve have claimed. (without source) Here's the FBI list of actual terrorism between 1980 and 2005. In that period there are more Jewish terorrists than Muslims. More ecoterrorists too. (scroll to the bottom)
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi ... error02_05

This guy makes the point about media coverage of terorism. (see his chart for all you chart fans...)

Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist!The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions

source: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-al ... e-muslims/

Lets be clear.There is a definite threat by radicals of all stripe who think they can advance their cause by acts of violence against the public or targeted against specific symbols of their "enemies". But the threat from all these sources has been dealt with by law enforcement agencies without the help of congressional hearings. Maybe because they were not fueled by enflamed rhetoric that insists we have a "Muslim Problem".
What we have, is a failure to communicate. The facts and the context. King did not set out to accomplish any of that - or his witness list and the language introducing his hearing would have been very different. (And probably wouldn't have attracted a lot of attention.)

By the way: In Europe..... terrorism seems to be a weapon employed by separtist groups...not Muslims.

The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2007 to 2009 could be attributed to extremist Muslims

source: http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp? ... &language=

quote from

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

First
Americans having a hearing regarding homegrown Radical Muslim extremists has nothing to do with Europe. While we like our European brothers, this hearing being complained about has nothing to do with them now does it?

Second
Nice link, but your stats are not complete and mean nothing unless you have COMPLETE stats
17 Radicalized Islamists per year, This statistic is based on:

To be included on the list, an offender had to have been wanted, arrested, convicted or killed in connection with terrorism-related activities since 9/11 -- and have lived in the United States, regardless of immigration status, for more than a year prior to arrest.

not on how many more might be out there, this number seems to me to be FAR lower than what we almost certainly have out there. Also missing is the percentage, 17 sounds low but how many total terrorists do we produce a year? If we produce 17 a year, this number is 100% What of the level of violence/terror? Ricky lists some Jewish terrorists and frankly I am unaware of any attacks at all what exactly do those "attacks" entail compared to some of the Islamic Extremist attacks and attempts? Lighting a bag of dog crap on someones front porch does not compare to shooting up a military base, how do these compare?

and this is pretty rich
Per the link they suggest:

Steps can be taken to minimize radicalization among Muslim-Americans, the study said. The most important is encouraging political mobilization among Muslims, which helps prevent radicalization and also demonstrates to Muslims abroad "that grievances can be resolved through peaceful democratic means."

and isn't that what the hearing was about? We heard from both sides in a peaceful democratic process, it helped mobilize peaceful Muslims to take part. Exactly as suggested yet the liberals still want to cry foul?

Tom

Nice link, but your stats are not complete and mean nothing unless you have COMPLETE stats
17 Radicalized Islamists per year, This statistic is based on:

Well, how would you have the FBI define a terrorist Tom? And why is it that you think the FBI has been incompetent in producing this analysis? WHats your source of information when you say "the number seems to me"?

Tom

What of the level of violence/terror? Ricky lists some Jewish terrorists and frankly I am unaware of any attacks at all what exactly do those "attacks" entail compared to some of the Islamic Extremist attacks and attempts

?

to make yourself aware and informed all you had to do was link to the FBI report provided to you and scrolled down to read the nature of each incidence of terrorism that they report. Most seem to be arson or bombing.
You could also avail yourself of the compilation charts on the other link to show you what the percentage of Muslim terrorists is of the total. 6% . My math calculates there are about 283 crimes of terror in the US in an average year. But you can check that in the totals provided.

Tom

We heard from both sides

Why do you think there are two sides Tom?
Isn't there such a thing as objective information? These hearings were essentially an accusation against the Muslim community in the US. There was nothing in the way of objective information presented, only points of view from impassioned people with personal experience. You think if the FBI had appeared and presented the information shown above that it would have been helpful? You think that this kind of context and full disclosure is what King was trying to accomplish? If so, why didn't he have the FBI present?
What would motivate him to choose the witness list he selected? And the two the Dems brought in, the same? That it became a two sided "arguement" demonstrates the fallacy that anything was going to be examined with an objective neutral mind set.
Its just a live version of a cable opinion show. Hosted by a terrorist sympatizer.

That sort of statistic was in fact presented by "the impassioned people". The hearing was not what you make it out to be, and the claim that it received a lot of media attention?
Uhhhh, no it didn't
The vast majority of attention it got was from the liberal crowd condemning it before it even happened, but the results, they went barely noticed by the media.

and thanks for proving my point
These Jewish "terrorists" are not in the same league as the Islamic Extremists
(again, most Muslims are fine, most Jews are fine, we are talking about extremists here)
Arson is bad, not forgiving it
But to compare it as any sort of "equal" are you serious?

and do you honestly believe there are more unknown Jewish terrorists or more unknown Islamic terrorists home grown in America? Be honest and you have yourself a reason for such hearings. And gee, isn't that what it's all about? Maybe finding the problem is not as big a deal as we thought? Didn't that come out in the hearings? Seems to me the hearings were better for your own 'side" yet you continue to insist they were improper....I don't get it.

Faxmonkey wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:There has been nothing serious about the Obama approach to domestic terror. Who else would investigate this if not Congress?

When you say there's nothing serious about Obama's approach, what exactly do you mean ? That he doesn't give speeches about homemade muslim extremism or that he's not funding/directing the FBI or whatever agency is appropriate to investigate it ?

I don't expect speeches. I do expect that he and the Attorney General, as the chief law enforcement officers of the nation, and the Homeland Security Secretary, would have the "courage" to actually name the name of the brand of terrorism that is out to kill Americans. However, they would rather turn themselves into contortionists than state the plain truth.

People are very touchy about their religion and any sort of critique often leads to them getting defensive and angry. So it might actually be a dumb strategy to pester the average Muslim by confronting him with the absurdity of his believe system or what others make of it.

For a religion that represents such a sliver of the populace, I think it is a bit remarkable that it has drawn such interest. For example, why no hearings on the Watch Tower? Maybe it's because no Jehovah's Witnesses are committing homicide in the name of their god?