[The wirerat]

First off, these "hearings" are a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. It seems to have turned into a massive pissing contest between Republicans and Democrats. They aren't getting anything done, the meetings are unproductive and pointless, and everyone comes out angrier on the end of the deal.
Secondly, terrorists are terrorists. I have friends of all types of religions and backgrounds, and it doesn't matter who they are or what they believe in, terror groups are terror groups. They may lay claim to religious beliefs and use those a shields of cowardice from whcih they launch their attacks, but in the end they are demented human beings who derive pleasure from the pain and death of other people.
Thirdly, domestic terrorism has many faces. One might even say that it has many definitions as well. It isn't just the radicals who use religion as an excuse, but also the groups who don't hold to any ideology other than that the government is too big, too powerful, and too invasive. I have my own views on that, but I'm not gonna share that in here beacuse this isn't about me.
What scares me about some of the attitudes that are represented is that it hails back to the days of when Communists were a huge issue, and when people would classify anyone as a communist. Just because someone is a muslim doesn't mean that they desire the same things groups like al-Queda do. Is there a danger from so called "radical muslims"? Yes. However we could say the same about radical Christians, or Radical Buddhists, or radical Mormons. ANYONE can be a danger to this country provided they act upon their beliefs with violence. These hearings are not about domestic terrorism. They are about profiling a massive community of American Muslims, many of whom are completely innocent.
It is true that a majority of our terror cases currently ongoing, as pointed out, have radical Isamists are the center. As such, can our conclusion be that mosques are bad places? Why not then make churches the same thing. And for that evidence I point you to the so-called Westboro Baptist church. I say so-called because they are neither a church, nor Baptists, and most certainly don't act like Christians. Are they violent? No, not yet, but I would not be surprised if it happened. I'm sure others can bring forth examples of Christian groups that are just as dangerous, if not more so than a muslim terrorist cell. The fact is, that we live in a dangerous world, with people who will stop at nothing to cause death and destruction to anyone. As such, we MUST act against any and all threats against our nation. However, stereotyping a group of individuals simply because of a few in their midst is wrong, and its gotta stop. Period. The buffoons in Congress have made a complete mockery and totally derailed these "hearings" to put forth their own agenda and beliefs as is typical of the leadership in Washington.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by slap_j

So I will ask you directly: Why is Kabbani a credible source when he's provided no substantive evidence to support his claims?

One of the most prominent Sunnis in America. Founder of about a half dozen Muslim organizations in this country. Teacher...scholar... In the same light that you would trust me as a source for goings-ons in my small circle of influence.

But none of that matters here to this argument...it does not matter what you or I think of him, King considers him a credible source. He's being lambasted as a raciest for citing a prominent Muslim leader in this country. Don't convince me he's not credible, convince King.

I didn't see you actually identify any sources. Just vague references to law enforcement and Muslim leaders.

Sheikh Kabbani, Nihad Awad, Robert Mueller, Robert Spencer, Eric Holder, past congressional hearings (like the one in 09 on Extremist Ideologies)... King's done a good job of citing his own sources. Take it or leave it, I doubt it'll change your mind.

The DoJ did not compel these hearings. Although there are problems there too.

Indirectly, yes, they did. Again, the main reason for the hearings is that in the past two years is that all 50 individuals charged with domestic terrorism have been influenced by radical Islam. Eric Holder himself that the thought of domestic terrorism is keeping him up at night...lets label him prejudice too.

Tell you what; both you and Jerry admit that Obama is prejudice against Muslims, and I'll conclude that King is; then we can be done with this mess.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

One of the most prominent Sunnis in America. Founder of about a half dozen Muslim organizations in this country. Teacher...scholar... In the same light that you would trust me as a source for goings-ons in my small circle of influence.

Firstly he said 80% of all mosques in the country. That's a broad swath. Not a small circle. And still, he provided no evidence. You ought to have a problem with that considering that: a) he's the sole source for this figure and b) he is not considered an expert on radicalization by anyone. Or, if that's not enough, that he's been repudiated by actual experts. For instance, Ihsan Bagby's study of Detroit mosques showing that "approximately 93 percent of mosque participants endorse both community and political involvement and more than 87 percent of mosque leaders support participation in the political process." Or perhaps the Muslim American Public Opinion Survey which found "that mosques and religiosity are actually associated with high levels of civic engagement and support for the American political system."

We ought to be concerned about due diligence when a marginalized group is being talked about in such a suspicious manner, yes? These are our neighbors we're called to love. No fewer than seven major American Muslim organizations have taken Kabbani to task for making off the wall statements that "put the entire American Muslim community under unjustified suspicion." He's also said that Bin Laden bought 20 nuclear warheads from former Soviet states with opium and that they're being turned into suitcase nukes. I'm honestly appalled that anyone would consider this guy a good source period, let alone as the sole source. That wouldn't even fly in high school.

Sheikh Kabbani, Nihad Awad, Robert Mueller, Robert Spencer, Eric Holder, past congressional hearings (like the one in 09 on Extremist Ideologies)... King's done a good job of citing his own sources. Take it or leave it, I doubt it'll change your mind.

Where are the quotes from these people that corroborate the 80% figure? Or that oppose the fact that 40% of Muslim American terror plots were foiled in part by tips from the Muslim American community? I've not seen them.

Again, the main reason for the hearings is that in the past two years is that all 50 individuals charged with domestic terrorism have been influenced by radical Islam.

The hearing is not about the DoJ's focus on Muslim extremism. It's about the community's response to radicalization. Hence the name, "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response.” It's encouraging broad suspicion about the Muslim community at large. And we already knew their response. They're cooperating. They're engaged.

Tell you what; both you and Jerry admit that Obama is prejudice against Muslims, and I'll conclude that King is; then we can be done with this mess.

I never said that King was "prejudice against Muslims." I said he's prejudiced in regards to these hearings. He formed and voiced opinions beforehand. This is easily verifiable. You seem to be under some impression that I don't want to be critical of the President. I didn't even vote for the man. I think he's warmonger like Bush was. I think he's more concerned about the bankers than the poor (like Dubya). Et cetera. If you want to talk about Obama specifically then go for it.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Firstly he said 80% of all mosques in the country. That's a broad swath. Not a small circle. And still, he provided no evidence. You ought to have a problem with that considering that: a) he's the sole source for this figure and b) he is not considered an expert on radicalization by anyone. Or, if that's not enough, that he's been repudiated by actual experts. For instance, Ihsan Bagby's study of Detroit mosques showing that "approximately 93 percent of mosque participants endorse both community and political involvement and more than 87 percent of mosque leaders support participation in the political process." Or perhaps the Muslim American Public Opinion Survey which found "that mosques and religiosity are actually associated with high levels of civic engagement and support for the American political system."

We ought to be concerned about due diligence when a marginalized group is being talked about in such a suspicious manner, yes? These are our neighbors we're called to love. No fewer than seven major American Muslim organizations have taken Kabbani to task for making off the wall statements that "put the entire American Muslim community under unjustified suspicion." He's also said that Bin Laden bought 20 nuclear warheads from former Soviet states with opium and that they're being turned into suitcase nukes. I'm honestly appalled that anyone would consider this guy a good source period, let alone as the sole source. That wouldn't even fly in high school.

Again, even if he doesn't pass your standards, he is an source for King. According to Gallup, 52% of Americans think disagree with you and think it's good enough.

Where are the quotes from these people that corroborate the 80% figure? Or that oppose the fact that 40% of Muslim American terror plots were foiled in part by tips from the Muslim American community? I've not seen them.

No one claimed King's sources combat those statics. What they do is discuss the problems in the Muslim community, law enforcement, and the failings in the past. If you would like to hear King cite his own sources, I suggest watching the hearings, or finding a transcript. You could also find one of the dozens of interviews he's done on this subject recently where he's been challenged. Past that, just don't believe me. I could point you to Holder's speech last year where he pleaded for greater cooperation from Muslim leaders, the the direct transcript from the 09 hearings discussing the problems with radical Islam in the Muslim community, but you've already made your conclusion.

The hearing is not about the DoJ's focus on Muslim extremism. It's about the community's response to radicalization. Hence the name, "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response.” It's encouraging broad suspicion about the Muslim community at large. And we already knew their response. They're cooperating. They're engaged.

King himself states the DoJ numbers as one of the primary reasons for the hearings. Are you claiming he's lying in addition to being prejudice? Seems like a whole new can of worms.

Originally Posted by slap_j

This is easily verifiable.

In three pages no one's been able to do so.

You seem to be under some impression that I don't want to be critical of the President. I didn't even vote for the man.

What I am is deeply concerned that you and others are holding King to a higher standard, and yet claiming he's guilty of doing the same as others in leadership, including our President. If one doesn't think our President is guilty of prejudice in this situation, then I see no way one can claim the same of King.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Again, even if he doesn't pass your standards, he is an source for King. According to Gallup, 52% of Americans think disagree with you and think it's good enough.

Of course he's a good enough source for King. I'm saying that's the problem. As far as the 52% figure goes (where is the source for this anyway?) popular opinion is not how we determine whether someone knows what they're talking about.

No one claimed King's sources combat those statics.

Then why bring them up in response to my question about the percentage of mosques controlled by radicals?

I could point you to Holder's speech last year where he pleaded for greater cooperation from Muslim leaders, the the direct transcript from the 09 hearings discussing the problems with radical Islam in the Muslim community, but you've already made your conclusion.

Have I accused you of being obstinate in your opinion? Perhaps you could extend the same graciousness?

King himself states the DoJ numbers as one of the primary reasons for the hearings. Are you claiming he's lying in addition to being prejudice? Seems like a whole new can of worms.

No. I'm saying that, regardless of what else he says, the scope and framing of the hearings encourage a disproportionate suspicion toward a singled out group (American Muslim community).

In three pages no one's been able to do so.

So you're denying that prior to the hearings he didn't say there were too many mosques in this country. That they need to be infiltrated? That the vast majority teach radical views (which implies what exactly about the people attending, and by extension, the vast majority of American Muslims?) None of these things were said before being duly investigated?

What I am is deeply concerned that you and others are holding King to a higher standard

The topic of this thread is Peter King and his congressional hearing. Your basis for this concern is that I'm not talking about something that isn't the topic? I cannot say Barack Obama's involvement in this hearing is prejudiced because he isn't involved. And by the way, it isn't even true that all domestic terror plots in the past two years have involved Muslims. There's also Joseph Stack, Larry Eugene North, George Jakubec, James Wenneker von Brunn, Scott Roeder, et al.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Of course he's a good enough source for King. I'm saying that's the problem..

It's a problem for 38% of the country. I'm simply telling you that the most people seem to think that a Muslim scholar and leader in the community is a pretty good source. Despite your argument, I'm still not convinced he's a bad source for this information, for the reasons listed in my previous post.

Then why bring them up in response to my question about the percentage of mosques controlled by radicals?

I didn't. I brought it up in you and Jerry's incorrect assertion that King has a single source for the entire hearing.

Have I accused you of being obstinate in your opinion? Perhaps you could extend the same graciousness?

Forgive me friend...I do consider you a friend. I do feel like you've already made up your mind. You may accuse me of the same if you'd like. I won't argue the point; I did not intend it as an insult.

No. I'm saying that, regardless of what else he says, the scope and framing of the hearings encourage a disproportionate suspicion toward a singled out group (American Muslim community).

This is a misnomer. Even if we take Jerry's numbers of 81% or whatever and open it up to other radicalization (domestically), King would never be able to fully investigate the link without being called prejudice or compared to McCarthy. You know this. Politics. But the numbers don't lie...50 out of 50. That's something to look at. Why wouldn't we? If all 50 were Christians it would be no different.

I would wonder what a 'proportional' amount of suspicion would be? What's fair? 81%? Do you think that would fly? How do you quantify that? It begs the question: Why are you so sure this hearing will encourage a disproportionate suspicion in the first place? I've obviously bought into King and I'm not particularly suspicious of Muslims right now. I'm rather concerned by the lone-wolf sitting in his cabin in the mountain planning things....we had those hearings last year, as I recall. The lone wolf crazies don't have the same pull with the national media, I guess.

So you're denying that prior to the hearings he didn't say there were too many mosques in this country. That they need to be infiltrated? That the vast majority teach radical views (which implies what exactly about the people attending, and by extension, the vast majority of American Muslims?) None of these things were said before being duly investigated?

I'm denying the context added to these statements by those with a political interest. This man was considered a friend to Muslims before you or I or anyone else started talking about him. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt before we pass judgment on him.

The topic of this thread is Peter King and his congressional hearing. Your basis for this concern is that I'm not talking about something that isn't the topic? I cannot say Barack Obama's involvement in this hearing is prejudiced because he isn't involved. And by the way, it isn't even true that all domestic terror plots in the past two years have involved Muslims. There's also Joseph Stack, Larry Eugene North, George Jakubec, James Wenneker von Brunn, Scott Roeder, et al.

No one's made that point. Again, in the past two years, all 50 individuals charged with domestic terrorism have been inspired by radical Islam. These numbers come for the Justice Department...not made up or pulled out of a hat. If King is guilty of prejudice for this fact, then it stands to reason that the DoJ, and boss by association, is too. It would be hypocritical to think otherwise. I just want someone to admit it, and I'm deeply concerned that no one will.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

It's a problem for 38% of the country. I'm simply telling you that the most people seem to think that a Muslim scholar and leader in the community is a pretty good source.

If my argument were that he's a fine source because most Americans think so it then these numbers might be relevant. But it's not. And if your only response to my objections is that he can be trusted because he's a community leader then I guess there isn't much more to say other than it's a bit misleading to talk about without mentioning that the only Muslim American organization to defend his comments was the one he founded and chairs. Opposing them were the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC), American Muslim Alliance (AMA), [[American Muslim Council] (AMC), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), [[Islamic Circle of North America] (ICNA), and the Muslim Students Association of USA and Canada (source).

I didn't. I brought it up in you and Jerry's incorrect assertion that King has a single source for the entire hearing.

I said it was his only source for the 80% figure. I can see how it was a bit ambiguous though.

Forgive me friend...I do consider you a friend. I do feel like you've already made up your mind. You may accuse me of the same if you'd like. I won't argue the point; I did not intend it as an insult.

Don't worry about it. I have taken a position, but that doesn't mean I can't or won't reconsider.

King would never be able to fully investigate the link without being called prejudice or compared to McCarthy. You know this. Politics.

There are ways to investigate these things that doesn't involve a hearing that spotlights the entire Muslim American community. I linked to one such study in post #14.

I would wonder what a 'proportional' amount of suspicion would be?

Well, there are approx. 2.5 million Muslim Americans. Since 9/11 there have been 161 Muslim American terrorism suspects and perpetrators. That's 0.006% of the American Muslim population. Maybe a scope that better reflects that.

Why are you so sure this hearing will encourage a disproportionate suspicion in the first place?

If the United States sees fit to have a hearing concerning this entire community of people it seems to naturally follow that people who are already ignorant about and have an apprehensive attitude toward Islam would only feel their stance to be legitimized. It encourages us vs them thinking. It frames it in terms of "are they helping us enough." Muslim American are us.

I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt before we pass judgment on him.

If you're conducting a hearing having already reached a conclusion about what it is that's going on (Muslims not cooperating) and what must be done about it (infiltrate mosques) then you're prejudging.

No one's made that point. Again, in the past two years, all 50 individuals charged with domestic terrorism have been inspired by radical Islam.

Is that not splitting hairs when we can readily identify non-Muslims who've engaged in what the FBI considers domestic terrorism within the past couple years? And can you cite that reference for me?

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Is that not splitting hairs when we can readily identify non-Muslims who've engaged in what the FBI considers domestic terrorism within the past couple years? And can you cite that reference for me?

Would you not agree that if the DoJ and FBI are at odds about who is deserving of the charge it only proves prejudice at the DoJ (since they are focusing on one group, apparently...same as King)?

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that other groups have commited acts, just that the Justice Department itself doesn't seem to care.

As for a cite, you can find the info at any news source...CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. I found it at The Washington Post, several pages in
N.Y. Muslims fear congressman's hearings could inflame Islamophobia
I see no reason not to take it as fact. I suppose if you want the actual numbers you can dig thru the Bureau of Justice statics directly at their website.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

@ Jerry... I think we as a nation have been very careful to distinguish between muslims (the overwhelming majority that we consider our fellow Americans, freinds and neighbors), and radical muslims. Can we stop saying "conservative" and "christian" in connection with nutcase crimes? It does nothing to support any point you may be trying to make. At best it is a poorly veiled provocation.

As soon as we stop saying "Muslims".

George Tiller was Christian and his specific act was motivated by his Christian derived beliefs: just as BinLaden is Muslim and his war is motivated by his Muslim beliefs. The same with the other examples.

I'm sorry that you feel that the intent is to provoke but it is not. It is a direct response to the "Muslim terrorist" and "Muslim complacency" and "Islamic fanaticism" focus. Find me an atheist or liberal performing domestic terrorism in the past two years as associated with their atheist or liberal beliefs and I will add them. I'm sure they have existed: though I have no idea if they have existed (committed or been charged with planning a terrorist act, specifically one involving homicide (as all my cases are)) in the US in the past 2 years.

Given that the controversy regarding these hearings is their focus on only one religious group: I don't think I can divorce such distinctions from the conversation.

[tlj009]

George Tiller was Christian and his specific act was motivated by his Christian derived beliefs: just as BinLaden is Muslim and his war is motivated by his Muslim beliefs. The same with the other examples.

Wasn't George Tiller the one killed?

[JerryLove]

I think that there will be two clear effects.

A portion of the conservative base (mostly Tea Party), will latch onto this specifically as a battle (like immigration), and this will be used to "energize the base". I fully expect that's the whole point of doing it.

Also: a portion of the young Muslim community, both domestic and foreign, will see this as proof of a persecution of Muslims and you will get more terrorists.

Also: we will spend a lot of tax-payer money on hearing which, as far as I can tell, have no attainable goal.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Wasn't George Tiller the one killed?

You are right: Tiller was the doctor who was killed. Scott Roeder was his murderer.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Would you not agree that if the DoJ and FBI are at odds about who is deserving of the charge it only proves prejudice at the DoJ (since they are focusing on one group, apparently...same as King)?

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that other groups have commited acts, just that the Justice Department itself doesn't seem to care.

As for a cite, you can find the info at any news source...CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. I found it at The Washington Post, several pages in
N.Y. Muslims fear congressman's hearings could inflame Islamophobia
I see no reason not to take it as fact. I suppose if you want the actual numbers you can dig thru the Bureau of Justice statics directly at their website.

Hm, yeah, I found the line in the second half of the fourth page. I'm not sure what to make of it though. I don't know what "major terrorism counts" means and I couldn't find anything on google to help. I did find this publication which says the following:

"A 2009 study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University found within the last five years, Federal attorneys declined to bring any charges against 67% of alleged terrorism-related cases referred to them from law enforcement agencies. In 2008, this statistic rose to a 73% decline rate of referred cases from law enforcement organizations.

When examining those remaining terrorism-related cases going to trial, publicly available data also paints a sobering picture. According to a September 2010 report by the Center for Law and Security (CLS) at New York University, only 43.8% of trial indictments publicly associated with terrorism have been directly prosecuted through terrorism or national security laws."

And directly from the TRAC report itself:

"Eight years after 9/11, federal agencies can't seem to agree on who is a terrorist and who is not. The failure has potentially serious implications, weakening efforts to use the criminal law to combat terrorism and at the same time undermining civil liberties. Evidence of this surprising lapse has emerged from extensive analyses by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) of many thousands of records obtained from the federal courts and from two agencies in the Justice Department.

Even for the government terrorism investigations that ultimately led to an actual prosecution for what often appeared to be serious crimes, TRAC found that the federal agencies differ markedly about who was labeled a terrorist and who was not."

I can't say I understand what the heck is going on here. I don't think the government knows what the heck is going on. If it is the case that they are focusing on Muslims exclusively (and it looks biased at first glance) then yes, that is bad. I wish I could find more information from the DoJ itself.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

As soon as we stop saying "Muslims".

George Tiller was Christian and his specific act was motivated by his Christian derived beliefs: just as BinLaden is Muslim and his war is motivated by his Muslim beliefs. The same with the other examples.

I'm sorry that you feel that the intent is to provoke but it is not. It is a direct response to the "Muslim terrorist" and "Muslim complacency" and "Islamic fanaticism" focus. Find me an atheist or liberal performing domestic terrorism in the past two years as associated with their atheist or liberal beliefs and I will add them. I'm sure they have existed: though I have no idea if they have existed (committed or been charged with planning a terrorist act, specifically one involving homicide (as all my cases are)) in the US in the past 2 years.

Given that the controversy regarding these hearings is their focus on only one religious group: I don't think I can divorce such distinctions from the conversation.

Christ taught us to love eachother, regardless of our perceived sin. No true Christian will say anything else. Christians can openly use the witness of the apostles to support this.

The USA is Christian in the majority. Our nutcases are likely to be Christian, simply by statistical chance. A nutcase will be motivated by religious passion sooner than many other things. I would suggest to you that we do investigate them. We find that these are nutcases. Not a pattern. Not an organized, successful, well funded, global movement which recruits in part using their own holy book. I ask you again, should we strive to find out why this is happening, or just ignore it? I don't like congressional hearings, but I'm sick of seeing and hearing RACIST every time I turn around.

Edit... your quote

Originally Posted by JerryLove

As soon as we stop saying "Muslims"..

is a misquote. I suggested we make great pains to state "radical Islam".

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Christ taught us to love eachother, regardless of our perceived sin. No true Christian will say anything else. Christians can openly use the witness of the apostles to support this.

The "no true Christian" debate is academic at best, and I'm not interested in the tangent. I deliberately chose someone who's terrorist action was based specifically on his Christian belief.

I'm not bashing Christianity: I'm showing the futility of attempting stereotyping of that sort.

We find that these are nutcases. Not a pattern. Not an organized, successful, well funded, global movement which recruits in part using their own holy book.

That's a red herring. (one that nearly had me mentioning the National Liberation Front of Tripura, National Socialist Council of Nagaland, the Lord's Resistance Army, all of which are as Christian as Al Queda is Muslim). Is this a hearing about AlQueda? I don't see that it is. Indeed: the sole target is the American Muslim community.

I ask you again, should we strive to find out why this is happening, or just ignore it? I don't like congressional hearings, but I'm sick of seeing and hearing RACIST every time I turn around.

Of course we should. Let's take a good, long look at the causes and sources of terrorism in the US and determine what we can do to most effectively prevent it.

I don't see any indication that such a thing is happening in this hearing.

Edit... your quote is a misquote. I suggested we make great pains to state "radical Islam".

I was not necessarily quoting you (hence "we" rather than "you". This "hearing" is over the American Muslim population.