tom

That sort of statistic was in fact presented by "the impassioned people".

Care to quote and let's compare ?

Tom

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?

Your point? What this proves was that you still havn't bothered to read the link to the FBI list..
I also said:

Most seem to be arson or bombing.

And that was a refderence to the entire list. Not just the Jewish Defence League.

Now, I know you seldom actually retain much of what you read so I'll bring your attention to the fact that you also neglected the word bombing, Both arson and bo,bing are indiscriminate acts that kill....

Where is your list of Muslim terrorist activities to compare with the FBI list Tom? You're claiming that the Muslims were more violent. List the acts and compare versus the FBI list.

Do I honestly believe there are more unknown Jewsish terrorists or unknown Muslim terrorists?
Look at the language you use. "Beleive"
I've pointed to the FBI evidence and you've used your "belief".

I presume that these unkown terrorists are unknown because they've committed crimes? Which crimes? (again a source for your claims is lacking) Or are they unkown because they havn't committed crimes.? In which case that makes them what?

steve

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.

]They've mentioned a lot. of threats Including ultra right wing militias, and eco terorism. You know why? They actually track the crimes and count them (see FBI database).And, based on the resources they have at their disposal, they have a pretty good handle on the size of each threat.
That they aren't exagerating the threat is a responsible behaviour.

OK Ricky
Off the top of my head I can think of several Islamic terrorist shootings and attempted plots to shoot up military bases. You mentioned some arson cases, Extremist Islamists are FAR worse, you asked me to compare so I will start with a handful, can you even match these three?

Jose Padilla. A U.S. citizen on a flight from Pakistan, Padilla was detained in Chicago in 2002 and accused of participating in an al-Qaeda plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" on U.S. soil.

Faisal Shahzad. A naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, Shahzad attempted to bomb New York's Times Square with a parked car full of explosives

Nidal Hasan. Virginia-born Muslim and career military psychiatrist Hasan shot and killed thirteen people and wounded nearly thirty in November 2009 at the Fort Hood Army base where he worked

That's only three, You asked me to list, your bluff was called!

Next,
How ignorant are you? You again get called on your bluff, you ask me to show where anyone sided with the Muslims ...Did you read any of the hearings or just concentrate on the liberal blog highlights?
This was a hearing and there were TWO sides presented, I do not deny there were certainly some accusations made, this was no love fest but neither was it a one sided smear campaign either. You WILL find accusations levied, that was never questioned yet you want us to believe this was apparently one sided only
How about the ultra conservative New York Times very liberally slanted report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/us/po ... 1king.html
some portions:

Democrats sought to put the spotlight on the lone law enforcement witness, Sheriff Leroy D. Baca of Los Angeles, who testified that Muslims do cooperate, and they cited a Duke University study that found that 40 percent of foiled domestic terror plots had been thwarted with the help of Muslims.

Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who is Muslim, wept as he recounted the story of Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old volunteer medical technician who rushed to help when the World Trade Center was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001 — and died in the building’s collapse.

If Dr. Jasser was the Republicans’ star, the sheriff was the Democrats’. He said Muslims often cooperated as individuals, “without the cover” of organizations. “The truth is that Muslims are just as independent, just as feisty, just as concerned about safety,” he said. “They certainly don’t want their homes or their mosques blown up.”

See, two sides represented, open, But did you actually read the report?
You showed either a bit of ignorance or complete lack of reality when you claimed this was well represented by the general media, that was false (BEFORE it was held, yes it was but not the result), everything you say here is false, you simply did not read the report and instead read your liberal blogs that concentrated only on the negative. You asked me to prove the obvious, I did.

You make unfounded accusations, you insist I prove you wrong when you make up stuff. Why I need to prove your assumptions is beyond me but here I did that for you. You have been proven wrong on two counts. Now maybe you want to go back and edit your posts again to show you never made such claims? (done earlier)

GMTom wrote:Jose Padilla. A U.S. citizen on a flight from Pakistan, Padilla was detained in Chicago in 2002 and accused of participating in an al-Qaeda plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" on U.S. soil.

He was tortured for 3 1/2 years on false charges, later he was turned over to a civil court and convicted of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, in overseas operations.

Doctor Fate wrote: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.

I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe Muslim terrorism isn't as big a threat as it was 10 years ago, or even 5 ? Even assuming that all kind of police and intelligence services were blind to the threat before 9/11 and certainly scrambled to get assets to bear in the following years, maybe it's been reduced to lone crackpots in the US and Europe and is as much under control as any radical violence prone movement can ever be.
However even if that's not the case, do you believe that there are any Americans that aren't aware of muslim terrorists, so that it's necessary to reiterate it ?

Doctor Fate wrote: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?

So Islam is especially stupid as far as religions go, that conclusion doesn't help us much in dealing with the problem. Fact is that a culture that is basically still medieval has to retrace a development that took 500 years in a few generations, that's not going to be easy. Especially as their religion is so interwoven with every aspect of their social culture.
Now that doesn't mean they should get any free passes or false tolerance should be extended to them for inacceptable practices that go against our western values, but at the same time i'm pretty certain that a combative stance by Christians will only be counterproductive.
We don't chop off priests heads anymore or burn down convents and churches so it will take a little longer to break Islam the way we have broken Christianity but i'm pretty confident that that's what's going to happen with Islam in the Western world. It will become as impotent as Christianity, more local tradition than influential societal power.
At least in the german speaking parts of Europe, that's what i base my opinions on.

American's are aware of Muslim Terrorism, so we should not investigate it?
and I had to read the above twice:

but maybe Muslim terrorism isn't as big a threat as it was 10 years ago, or even 5 ?

excuse me? I just looked at 2010 and terrorism by Islamic groups outnumbered all others about 2:1
I started going through 2009 and it was about 3:1 when I stopped the rather obvious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te ... ents,_2010

Now, in all fairness, maybe 5-10 years ago this was 5:1 and your claim might be correct?
but if you simply want to claim, 2or3:1 is no big deal, then I think we have a disconnect with reality to think it's not a problem and not worth investigating.

lastly, I agree 100% with your notion that eventually Islam will "mellow" or "be broken" as you put it. But how many hundreds of years might this take? It took how many hundreds for Christianity to finally "be broken"? I don't think a sit back and wait several dozen decades or more is a real "plan"

and Neal, the guy was convicted, that means he was guilty, thanks for supporting me buddy!

tom,

How ignorant are you? You again get called on your bluff, you ask me to show where anyone sided with the Muslims ...

Here's what you said: (referencing the offficial FBI database:

That sort of statistic was in fact presented by "the impassioned people".

Here's what I said:

Care to quote and let's compare ?

Nothing in what you've provided is there a reference to any numbers of incidents, no official database or reporting of incidences... You've gone to the witness testimony, in which the only statistical analysis presented was the Duke University study...
So I'm wondering if you understand the concept of objective analysis? Do you not beleive the FBI numbers?

tom

excuse me? I just looked at 2010 and terrorism by Islamic groups outnumbered all others about 2:1

You know in that Wikipedia list you looked at, all those colourful flags ? Those are the countries where the act of terrorism ocurred. You'll note a lot of Pakistani, Russian and Iraqis flags. There are no US flags.
We are discussiung the threat to America are we not?

Now in your post where you list three acts of terror...one being plotting, one an attempted but badly executed bombing . Bombing, which you think doesn't mean much if done by ecoterrorists, or the JDF or the latino terror groups. I've already shown you on the FBI database that there are about 17 Muslim acts of terror a year in the US. Out of about 296 annual total criminal acts of terror by all manner of terrorist. (based on FBI database)
Do you understand that the FBI list of 17 would include the three you've mentioned? What I asked you to find is some substantiation for your claim that Muslim terrorism is the bulk of the terrorist activity in the US OR that Musliim terrorists acts are always worse than others. Listing three events doesn't help this arguement. Especially two fails. 3 is less than 17 and a smaller portion of the annual average of 296.
Real Context? You add up all the deaths and damgae caused by the 296 acts of terrorism per year in the States, it pales in comparison with the carnage from gun crime.

Be that as it may, Tom. you also repeat the claim that 2 sides were presented at the hearing.
I agreed.But I asked you why there are two sides and no objective testimony from a govenrment law enforcement agency? If the FBI had reported in the hearing that there were about 296 acts of terrorism in the US every year and that about 17 were from Muslim terror groups would that have been fair? Its entirely accurate. Would it provide the kind of context that individual stories can't? And would it have put into context the topic of the hearing?
I think so.
But King didn't invite the FBI to report on this data to provide this context. Why not Tom?

Ricky, lets get back to reality
First, I showed a statistic, that Duke University number, they presented their case, you claim they did not, you claim this was nothing but a smear campaign, you were wrong, it most certainly was not. Now you try to worm your way out of your position using semantics (again)?

The little flags in the wiki link, Yep, they most certainly show world wide terrorism. That was in response to what Fax stated

I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe Muslim terrorism isn't as big a threat as it was 10 years ago, or even 5 ? Even assuming that all kind of police and intelligence services were blind to the threat before 9/11 and certainly scrambled to get assets to bear in the following years, maybe it's been reduced to lone crackpots in the US and Europe and is as much under control as any radical violence prone movement can ever be.

His statement was clearly not about the US only (note he mentioned Europe?)
...Not every reply has to do with your version of things.
It most certainly was correct and no he was not discussing the threat to America only now was he?

last
What part of comparing a terrorist plot to shoot up a military base (or fly into a sky scraper?) to an arson case do you not understand? You want to use simple numbers of "minor" events to make your case. They are not comparable, one arson attempt does not equal an attempt to down an aircraft. How many of your "other" terrorist groups are actively trying to acquire biological and nuclear weaponry? Your simple numbers make no sense, all terrorist attacks/plots/plans are not equal. Like I said, lighting a bag of dog crap on ones porch does not equal shooting up a military base, yet you insist on saying it is.

Lets try this again
Please tell me, of your "other" groups, add them ALL together, what are the absolute worst cases? A few arson cases?
I mentioned a dirty bomb case, military base shootings, an attempted car bombing in Times Square, your "side" has ...what?

Faxmonkey wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote: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.

I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe Muslim terrorism isn't as big a threat as it was 10 years ago, or even 5 ? Even assuming that all kind of police and intelligence services were blind to the threat before 9/11 and certainly scrambled to get assets to bear in the following years, maybe it's been reduced to lone crackpots in the US and Europe and is as much under control as any radical violence prone movement can ever be.

You are welcome to believe that. I don't believe the facts bear your opinion out. There have been more attacks by Islamists over the past few years in the US than previously. They are ascribed to "crackpots" ("lone wolfs") and then we find out they're not so lonely--that they've been to Pakistan, that they've been in contact with Al-Awlaki, that they've been funded by Muslims from the Middle East, etc.

However even if that's not the case, do you believe that there are any Americans that aren't aware of muslim terrorists, so that it's necessary to reiterate it ?

How much have we heard, for example, about the Muslim men who left our Midwest to go to Somalia to fight for the Islamist cause? Do we have any idea how many US imams are preaching jihad against our own country?

After 9/11, we were all warned about violence against innocent Muslims in our country. I would submit there has been a remarkable lack of it. Given that, I think fears of anti-Muslim violence or even hatred as a result of these hearings is greatly overblown.

Doctor Fate wrote: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?

So Islam is especially stupid as far as religions go, that conclusion doesn't help us much in dealing with the problem.

If by "stupid," you mean "violent," then we agree. However, if by "stupid," you mean "dumb," then you're arguing against a straw man. I implied "violent" as indicated by "homicide."

Fact is that a culture that is basically still medieval has to retrace a development that took 500 years in a few generations, that's not going to be easy. Especially as their religion is so interwoven with every aspect of their social culture.

This is an oft-trotted out canard. Islam today does not exist in the Middle Ages. It exists today. That the religion is 500+ years younger than Christianity does not change the world in which it exists. For example, Hinduism is not given a pass on violence, is it? Yet, it is older than most religions (allegedly).

Fundamentalist Islam delights in being mired in the Dark Ages. It decries virtually anything modern and believes violence is THE solution. Comparisons to the Crusades, etc., miss the point: no other religion has remained so violent for so long. Islam was founded by a warrior and it has always maintained his spirit.

It will become as impotent as Christianity, more local tradition than influential societal power.
At least in the german speaking parts of Europe, that's what i base my opinions on.

I would love to revisit this in 500 years so you would be proven wrong. Sadly, that's not possible. Islamic violence will wane a bit--after we get rid of oil as a resource. However, the Islamist fervor will not wane.

tom,
Here's what you said: (referencing the offficial FBI database:

That sort of statistic was in fact presented by "the impassioned people".

Here's what I said:

Care to quote and let's compare

?

So yes, you mentioned the Duke University study. But you may have forgotten that the study doesn't support your claim that Muslim terrorism is an enormous problem. It was indeed presented in the hearing, but as evidence against the idea of massive Muslim radicalization ocurring.
There was nothing statistical OR from an official authoritative source like the FBI, presented at the hearing to support the view that Islamic terrorism or muslim radicalization was significant. All that was presented were personal stories. Please feel free to contradict this with a quotation or link from the hearing...
What I'm looking for from you OR Steve is actual data that shows the scope of Islamic terrorism as being as large as you say it is... I've shown you the FBI data. It shows 17 Islamic terror incidents a year out of 296 terror incidents a year of all stripes in the US between 1980 and 2005. (about 6% of all events)
Do you not beleive the FBI? (Please reply to this Tom. Its important to know that you actually acknowledge an authority on the matter.)

Do you have something other than anecotal referals to individual events that supports your claims that Islmaic terror is both dominant amongst terror threats and of an enormous scope..
Both of you make claims that you try to substantiate by referencing two or three events or making vague unsubstantiated claims.. .I grant you that the two or three events you mention happened. But in the scope of potential threats they've been part of the 6% of all terrorist actions in the US that Muslims represent.
I particularly like the appeal to "the terorists we don't know about". What if that number is actually 0 Tom but we just don't know that?

Ricky, dude, do you READ what you want to argue about?
Lets go over this s l o w l y for you

You claimed the hearing was a smear campaign against the Muslim religion and was one sided.

I contested it most certainly was not

You claimed Islamist Extremists were responsible for only a fraction of the terror cases in the US and the "impassioned people" need to present thier case, these statistics need to be heard but they were being shut out (since this was a supposed one sided hearing only ...according to you)

Ummm,
The "impassioned people" did show this statistic, yes it is on "your side" that's the freaking point!
It shows that the hearing was in fact fair and open, something you continue to claim is not the case. I am arguing the meaning of this statistic is nearly meaningless with you, but the claim that the hearing was one sided was wrong and when you asked for an example, I gave you one (several) and yet you now try to spin it into something else. Slow down, read before you post!!!

Then you go on and on showing how ineffectual the hearing was and how your position "won"
...great, thanks for showing it was indeed fair and open, not what you freaking claimed it would be nor what you after the fact claimed it was.

Now, can you continue to claim the hearing was one sided? You just said yourself this supports your position!?
Seems to me like you are helping me prove your assumptions (posed as fact) wrong, thanks buddy, you did it again!

Ricky, dude, do you READ what you want to argue about?

Yes.
However Mostly you paraphrase and make up out of whole cloth and then post..
I guess thats easier than arguing on point.
Tell you what, you cut and paste exactly which comments of mine you say you are responding to..

And oh, the FBI data. Do you beleive the FBI data? ..I'd really like to know if you accept their authority to report on the incidence of terrorism in the US.

Excuse me?
I replied directly to your question, it was on point, it had facts

Your reply is that this was my fault?
And I also mentioned the FBI data many many times, what part of that do you not understand?
I'm guessing this is not covered in your liberal blogs so you don't know how to reply?

I clearly stated the NUMBER does not equal the INTENSITY of the attack.
Let me say this one more time so you can understand
Lighting a bag of dog crap on ones doorstep does not equal shooting up a military base. Your minor arsons and such simply do not equal the violence and intensity of radical islamists. I also clearly asked you to list some examples of your greater number of terrorist attacks/plots and listed only 3 extremist Islamic attacks/plots. Let me hear how awful these others really are, they simply are not in the same league regardless of how many more there are. The greatest threat is from radical islam not from jews or antiabortionists.