What Dan, Ricky and myself are all objecting to is not so much the attempt to investigate the causes of radicalisation among domestic Muslims. Far from it in fact, I think that our governments have a duty to investigate this phenomenon and understand the threat that we face as thoroughly as possible so they can best target the resources of the state to tackle it. But I think it would be fair that I speak for all three of us when I say that a Congressional inquiry headed up by a known terrorist sympathiser is the absolute worst way that this investigation could possibly be carried out. I also suspect that they'd agree with me that Peter King has no real interest in actually learning the facts and in fact simply wants to set up a nice bit of political theatre to make a name for himself. I personally think this is extremely dangerous. He's certainly going to antagonise a lot of US Muslims and may succeed in radicalising a few of them. And for what ? What is he going to learn from this political stunt ?

It's all very well to say that Peter King is not the most appropriate person to carry out this inquiry, but what you seem to be missing is the blindingly obvious fact that the whole thing is Peter King's baby. Without him it wouldn't be happening at all. It's his own private circus and he's the ringmaster. This being the case, I don't think it's right to glibly overlook his own past failings. they're not at all irrelevant to the debate, they frame it. A man who has a track record of funding terrorists, visiting the homes of terrorists, sponsoring terrorists to visit his country, standing up in court in support of terrorists, making numerous speeches justifying the murder of civilians by terrorists and who likes to compare terrorist leaders to George Washington is the man who is the driving force behind this inquiry. It completely discredits the whole thing, I'm amazed that anybody can try to claim otherwise.

Obama?
Tom, I don't understand your line of thought here. It is a Republican controlled House of Representatives. If anyone is to blame for King being in that position it is the voters of Rep. King's district and/or Speaker Boehner.

green

Are you choosing to willfully ignore the dichotomy of your position?

Which position?
If I were king, (and by that I mean a monarch not a republican rabble rouser named Peter King with a suspect past and questionable motives) I would ban the sale of automatic and semi automatic weapons. (And if I were magic I'd arm Bears and Deer to make hunting a competitive sport) But I'm not king, and I recognize that the 2nd amendment may need to be amended for this to ever happen.
Moreover i havn't alluded to the constitution in questioning the King Inquisition into Muslim America. So I ask, which position?

The King Inquisition is all about justifying Islamaphobia.
If it genuinely sought answers then why this?

None of the seven witnesses were leaders of large, national Muslim organizations, or national experts on law enforcement.

And Green I'm never delusional except in regards my support for a couple of sports teams... I don't beleive that simply by outlawing or banning the weapons you'd always keep them out of the hands of terrorists. But the constant rigourous enforcement of that law would, over time, serve the purpose of significantly lowering the number of gun deaths in the US (currently about 26,000 a year) . And that would be better.
I'm not delusional in that I don't expect perfection. Only better.
Are you delusional in beleiving that the number of gun deaths in America will decrease without changes to the current laws and patterns of enforcement? Or are you simply unconcerned about the carnage?
And, in the end, I trust you'll recognize that my proposed ban would do more to keep guns out of the hands of Muslim Terrorists than anything Peter King accomplishes in Washington with his Inquisition.

Green Arrow wrote:Kumbaya, Danivon.

Please to explain?

Sass, you certainly summed up my thoughts on it.

Tom, I don't think Obama has any control over what a House to Representatives committee head decides to run an enquiry on, and I expect that it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. So the 'Obama backers' can say (or not say) what they like on it.

Or are you right wingers so wound up about Barack that you will blame him for what his opposition do?

By the way, I wasn't being that facetious about 'young males'. It's a key question as to how disaffected men come to believe that violence is the answer to the problems that they see. I accept than some (many?) are inspired to do so by religion, and Islam is prime amongst those at the moment, but there are a lot of other factors as well. Should those other factors be ignored?

Perhaps it would be instructive for King to compare how his beloved IRA inspired young men to become terrorists with how radical muslims do it today. Is it the message, or the medium, or something else.

Hey, maybe he is appropriate after all. As long as he's shown contrition for his support for Republican terrorism.

danivon wrote:

Green Arrow wrote:Kumbaya, Danivon.

Please to explain?

It means we agree or come together. It comes from a song.

Yes, so do you mean to say that you agree with me? Only the only contexts I've seen it in is as a song for Boy Scouts or as a way of trying to suggest that someone is a peacenik

I see what your position is RickyP. Sorry for misunderstanding what you were saying. I thought you havebeen saying that the 2nd Amendment does not allow private citizens to own weapons. No I understand that was just a wishful thinking position in which you would change the 2nd Amendment to fit your desires.

By the way, I think it is a bit of a stretch to proclaim a hearing as the Inquisition. I can define both for you if you are having difficulty denoting the difference. (Hint: In the Inquisition, the people being questions sometimes died)

Danivon, It is a song of meeting (that is, in Christian circles)

I don't disagree that the issue of radicalisation should be investigated. I'm less than convinced that the forum of Congressional Hearing is the best way to go about it. I'm in total agreement with Sass about King being totally unsuitable to be the one instigating and running such a thing.

Pretty much agreed with all of this. (Other than the rare misspelling from you)

Green Arrow wrote:Danivon, It is a song of meeting (that is, in Christian circles)

Ah well, I sung the song as a scout, but never worried about the meaning...

Pretty much agreed with all of this. (Other than the rare misspelling from you)

misspelling? The ise/ize ending debate is a bit silly surely? Unless I tapped something else wrong when I wrote that on my mobile.

I keep forgetting that you are British. I withdraw the supposition of misspelling with apology.

Having just heard this on "As It Happens" Kumbaya was a song of slaves in the US south. "Come by here " in pidgin English sung whilst working in the fiields.
It was a part of Black Baptist Church repetorese and was co-opted in the 1950's by the Folk revolution.
And lately it is often used as a label of derision by people who don't want to accept compromise.
"Kumbaya moment" ...Michael Moore.

Let me just say that it is not meant in a derisive fashion toward Danivon.

I stand corrected on my comment on Obamas position regarding King
I had assumed this was an appointed position by the President
I did not realize he only recently took over this position.

I have no idea why he was elected, I have no idea why the Republicans would support the guy by allowing him to head such a position, I also wonder why the Democrats didn't make more noise when this did occur. But I do stand corrected!!!

But facts are, he heads the department that should be looking into such matters, he should not be in this position but alas, he is and he is now doing his job. Complaining about his past before the hearings even start is a simple smoke screen, no less.

He doesn't head the department, he chairs the Congressional oversight committee. It's a political body and these hearings are a nakedly political act. As such his background is perfectly fair game in my opinion.

His background is fair game, dismissing the hearing simply because of his background is flat out wrong. And the story posted is simply a smear piece having nothing to do with the investigation.