Sass, you yourself are already claiming the "point" was something it most certainly was not. Did you read even one posting here in support of Kings past? Nobody here supports the clown, we simply said the Islamic Extremists are a very real threat, are you suggesting we should not investigate this threat? You can certainly claim another should be in charge of it, but that my friend is ...another point!
Please don't confuse the two, when an attempt to confuse by bringing up a different issue is made, that is called a smokescreen isn't it?

This is where we fundamentally differ Tom. We both agree that understanding the causes of extremism is important but whereas you seem to believe that this Congressional hearing had something to do with that goal I think it was simply a political vanity vehicle for Peter King. I don't believe for one second that he ever expected to gain anything useful out of it except a lot of publicity for himself. Unfortunately for him though it seems not all the publicity was what he was looking for since it brought to light his incredibly shady past. Them's the breaks I guess.

It's not a smokescreen to talk about Peter King's past because so far as I'm concerned this whole circus has been about nothing else from the get-go.

...and the hearing on Youth Violence?
was that any different?

Sure. I mean, obviously it will have largely been an opportunity for grandstanding, but at the same time the people on that committee will have known there wasn't much of a gallery to play to. King chose an emotive subject that was almost guaranteed to get a huge amount of publicity.

Please do not lose sight of the issue, looking into Islamic Extremism.

No, you're wrong.
actually the hearing as titled looking into American Muslim Radicalization....
Now you may not grasp the difference but essentially what King was trying to do was assign collective guilt for Muslim extremists to the Islamic community.

Most everyone would agree, even liberals, that there are a handful of "extremists" who are motivated by a skewed understanding of Islam. Thats what the police and intelligence community are there for...And in fact they have a pretty good handle on this issue. If King was interested, he could have read this report for instance..

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R41416.pdf

from this report:

there have been 77 total terror plots by domestic, non-Muslim perpetrators since 9/11. In comparison, there have been 41 total plots by both domestic and international Muslim perpetrators during the same period.”

Now a teror plot might, and usually was, raising funds for terror or attempting to get into Pakistan to join the jihad...
But in raw numbers, Muslims run #2....
We know these things pretty well Tom. And, if you read the report I linked you to, the law enforcement authorities know its important to work with the mainstream Muslim community NOT attempt to link very Muslim with suspicion and collective guilt.
That would be like assigning blame for IRA bombings to all the Irish Catholics in the world, including those in New York City.

Where do you come up with this stuff?
The linked artical is titled:
"American Jihadist Terrorism: Combatting a Complex Threat"
The thing is all about Jihadists!

Regarding your numbers
I see all sorts of liberal links about this, please tell me where you read them in this 130+ page report that details stuff you obviously did not read yourself. What page was it on? And where did you yourself read the part about working with Muslims? Yes, no kidding, but where did YOU read it, I'm curious because I just read 75% of the report and what I got from it was absolutely not what you got from it...probably because you never read what you linked to now did you?

Regarding your Irish Catholic comparison
close but not quite right, if we had a bunch of homegrown IRA terrorism cases, I would strongly suggest you look into the Catholic church, yes ....duh!
We have radicalized Islamic terrorists and guess where they can be found? Are we to ignore that little fact? You certainly seem to say yes over and over while ignoring facts.

Regarding your Irish Catholic comparison
close but not quite right, if we had a bunch of homegrown IRA terrorism cases, I would strongly suggest you look into the Catholic church, yes ....duh!
We have radicalized Islamic terrorists and guess where they can be found? Are we to ignore that little fact? You certainly seem to say yes over and over while ignoring facts

.

The largest source for funding for the IRA wa the United States. Primarily Boston.
Does that mean that all the Catholic churches in Boston should have been considered sites of radicalization and the birth place of terrorism? They would following Kings reasoning.

As for knowing where radicalized Islamic terrorists can be found; the FBI and other authorities know very well where to find them. And have been pretty successful. If you actually read the report I linked you to you'll find that only 4 lone wolves actually succeeded in carrying out their plots. More importantly the authoriites state that they both require and have the cooperation of Islamic institutions in America in combatting extremists...

But again, thats not where King was going. He was painting all American Muslims with a broad brush. And he did so even in the title of his hearings.
Since you fail to understand the difference between radical jihadist (as written in the report) and American Muslim I guess you are fairly easy pickings for the demogougery of King.

The thing is all about Jihadists!

Well, duh!
Here's what I said when i linked you to it...

Most everyone would agree, even liberals, that there are a handful of "extremists" who are motivated by a skewed understanding of Islam. Thats what the police and intelligence community are there for...And in fact they have a pretty good handle on this issue. If King was interested, he could have read this report for instance

..

GMTom wrote: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.

Gave up on proving Tea Party Hatred, so . . . move on to . . . Peter King???

Whatever.

The "force" of NA's argument is . . . n/a. It goes something like this: "Congressman King cannot investigate terror in the US among the Islamic population because he has friends who were involved in terrorism in Ireland."

It's called "ad hominem" argumentation. There is no basis upon which to dismiss the investigation, so attack the investigator!

And, it gets even better. The same people who decried "guilt by association" when it was pointed out that Obama had/has friends who were terrorists now complain about King. That would actually make sense if he was trying to cover up terrorism, but he's trying to expose it. It would also make sense if this had anything to do with Ireland or the UK. However, it is Islamic terrorism in the US. If Congress can't investigate this, what can they investigate?

Neal Anderth wrote:A history lesson from Michelle Bachmann

Awesome--so she would be in the same category as the current President, who campaigned in 57 States.

rickyp wrote:The largest source for funding for the IRA wa the United States. Primarily Boston.
Does that mean that all the Catholic churches in Boston should have been considered sites of radicalization and the birth place of terrorism? They would following Kings reasoning.

And, if that was the case (that RC churches were raising funds for terrorism in the UK), it would be something the FBI should investigate and shut down, right? If they weren't, Congress should have investigated, right? If both failed, does that mean no one should investigate radical Islam now?

So, what's the problem?

As for knowing where radicalized Islamic terrorists can be found; the FBI and other authorities know very well where to find them. And have been pretty successful.

Uh-huh.

Well, thousands of dead Americans would disagree with you--if they could.

Not only that, but there have been a number of near misses. If they know where the radicals are, some of the FBI belong in jail for gross dereliction of duty.

More importantly the authoriites state that they both require and have the cooperation of Islamic institutions in America in combatting extremists...

Interesting, since . . . the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center disagrees:

National Security experts do acknowledge that the risk of "homegrown" terrorists has increased.

"There is a risk of Americans seeing something in the al Qaeda worldview," National Counterterrorism Center director Michael Leiter said on CBSNews.com's webshow "Washington Unplugged." That risk has increased this year, he said, though he added, "I think it's still too early to say that we have a trend."

But again, thats not where King was going. He was painting all American Muslims with a broad brush. And he did so even in the title of his hearings.

Interesting, since . . . that's not at all what King was doing (same article):

Republican Rep. Peter King of New York plans to hold hearings in Congress next year on the "radicalization" of Muslim communities, his office confirmed to the Hotsheet.

Since you fail to understand the difference between radical jihadist (as written in the report) and American Muslim I guess you are fairly easy pickings for the demogougery of King.

You're the one who is "easy pickings." You uncritically believe whatever liberal swill is being served on a given day.

Please note my source is CBS News--and they refer to the NYT. Is that too conservative for you?

How many Canadians have been killed by radical Islamists? And, did you happen to notice the attack in Germany? Just because the suspect is from Kosovo doesn't change his motivation--radical Islam.

GMTom wrote:turns out yes it was indeed a waste of time, I had pointed out we could not know for certain if it would be

So it was a waste of time, but...

GMTom wrote:Agreed King is no saint but it was in no way a sham, his history played no role in how things proceeded.

So it was a waste of time but not a sham?

Kings past had zero to do with the point of the hearing and was instead a smokescreen. Please do not lose sight of the issue, looking into Islamic Extremism. This issue was basically no different than the Youth Violence trend a waste of time looking into an otherwise very real problem. Who headed the hearing was simply an attempt to change the focus and it seems to have worked.

Actually, who heads (and instigates) an inquiry is quite crucial to the way an enquiry goes. It was a waste of time, but that's nothing to do with the guy who ran it? Ok.

Sass, you yourself are already claiming the "point" was something it most certainly was not. Did you read even one posting here in support of Kings past? Nobody here supports the clown, we simply said the Islamic Extremists are a very real threat, are you suggesting we should not investigate this threat? You can certainly claim another should be in charge of it, but that my friend is ...another point!

Sass has already said that he does not disagree that the issue should be investigated. It's the how and the who does it that was the problem.

Please don't confuse the two, when an attempt to confuse by bringing up a different issue is made, that is called a smokescreen isn't it?

Sorry, but no, you still do not get it. Perhaps because you did not live in an area that was the target of IRA attacks (both of the Manchester attacks occurred while I was living there, the Birmingham attacks took place in my gf's home city, I know people from Guildford, and London...), you may underestimate the issue of being associated with them. It's not a smokescreen to point out that the guy running an enquiry into terrorism and radical Islam was associated with terrorism and radical Irish Republicanism, and as far as I can see, has shown zero remorse or apology.

danivon wrote:It's not a smokescreen to point out that the guy running an enquiry into terrorism and radical Islam was associated with terrorism and radical Irish Republicanism, and as far as I can see, has shown zero remorse or apology.

Why? If he once supported terror in Ireland, does that mean he cannot investigate a different form of terror in the US?

Did he take an oath to protect Great Britain or the United States?

Note: I am not defending his support of the IRA. However, I've never voted for the guy. He is a Congressman and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with looking into a segment of a religion that has killed thousands of Americans in dozens of attacks over the past couple of decades.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:It's not a smokescreen to point out that the guy running an enquiry into terrorism and radical Islam was associated with terrorism and radical Irish Republicanism, and as far as I can see, has shown zero remorse or apology.

Why? If he once supported terror in Ireland, does that mean he cannot investigate a different form of terror in the US?

If he has shown no remorse or apology, could it be that he still stands by his support for the IRA? Where is his acknowledgement that it was wrong to?

And that's the 'why' - He apparently wants to explain why a group of people from a disaffected minority get all extremist and take up arms, and yet he was actively fundraising for groups that encouraged young people in Ireland and Northern Ireland to get all extremist and take up arms.

Did he take an oath to protect Great Britain or the United States?

Who cares? Innocent people died. What nationality they were is irrelevant to the fact that someone supported the terrorist groups that killed them.

You may want to imagine that the USA is some kind of bubble outside of which all is immaterial, but that's not how it is.

Note: I am not defending his support of the IRA. However, I've never voted for the guy. He is a Congressman and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with looking into a segment of a religion that has killed thousands of Americans in dozens of attacks over the past couple of decades.

The IRA killed a couple of thousand people over the course of three decades. And religion is somewhat integral to the issues surrounding the cause that they were fighting for. It would have been ludicrous to have some public boondoggle to investigate 'Catholic Extremism', and we didn't do it - not that our governments didn't do any amount of other counter-productive things, like internment.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Why? If he once supported terror in Ireland, does that mean he cannot investigate a different form of terror in the US?

If he has shown no remorse or apology, could it be that he still stands by his support for the IRA? Where is his acknowledgement that it was wrong to?

And that's the 'why' - He apparently wants to explain why a group of people from a disaffected minority get all extremist and take up arms, and yet he was actively fundraising for groups that encouraged young people in Ireland and Northern Ireland to get all extremist and take up arms.

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?

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.

Did he take an oath to protect Great Britain or the United States?

Who cares? Innocent people died. What nationality they were is irrelevant to the fact that someone supported the terrorist groups that killed them.

You may want to imagine that the USA is some kind of bubble outside of which all is immaterial, but that's not how it is.

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.

The IRA killed a couple of thousand people over the course of three decades. And religion is somewhat integral to the issues surrounding the cause that they were fighting for. It would have been ludicrous to have some public boondoggle to investigate 'Catholic Extremism', and we didn't do it - not that our governments didn't do any amount of other counter-productive things, like internment.

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