Peter King's Congressional Hearings on the Mohammedan Threat

[VerseD]

Representative Peter King, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has proceeded with his hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims despite opposition from House Democrats, Muslim Representatives, counter-terrorism and security officials, religious and civil rights leaders, the NAACP, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Amnesty International, etcetera, etcetera.

Security experts say the hearings will target and demonize American Muslims, discourage them from helping counter-terrorist efforts in the future, and prove true a message of Al Qaeda that America is an enemy of Islam; civil rights experts say that targeting a religion for its rhetoric is a violation of the First Amendment; Democrats wonder if King will ever target Christian fundamentalists or white supremacists; and just about everyone calls this a revival of McCarthyism.

"To back down would be a craven surrender to political correctness," said King, stolid as a bull and almost as smart. "Indeed, Congressional investigation of Muslim American radicalization is the logical response to the repeated and urgent warnings which the Obama administration has been making in recent months." He called Muslims "an enemy living among us," not real Americans when it comes to war, and has said that eighty percent of mosques are controlled by radical imams.

King cites the Council of American Islamic Relations, who passed around a sign saying, "Build a Wall of Resistance -- Don’t Talk to the F.B.I," and some Mullahs who have expressed support for Hamas in Palestine and maintain that it is not a terrorist organization: radical speech! Apparently his own explicit support for the IRA in the 1980s does not count. (Did you expect him not to be a total hypocrite?)

In the first session, held today and titled "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community’s Response," King's coterie proposed that mosques are secretly radicalizing children and that the Muslim community is not helpful in foiling terrorist plots. This is despite statistics, which show that non-Muslims have committed more violent extremist plots in the United States since 2001, and that "seven of the last ten terrorist plots were foiled with the help of tips from Muslims" (NYT).

For the last ten years America has balanced a need for security with the need to recognize that there are Muslims who are patriotic and hard-working members of our community. The act has challenged the religiosity of our national identity, extending that identity beyond the Anglo Christian, and has challenged our ability to distinguish religion from the politics of the War On Terror. Peter King has lost that challenge, and has sat the big weight of his bigotry on the fascist end of our carefully balanced security.

At least, that's my opinion. What is yours?

[J Arcane]

I don't know much bout it, haven't had the chance to read up on it, other than that apparently they managed to make our only Muslim senator cry. (http://abcn.ws/eDDn1V)

[Kelegacy]

McCarthyism 2011. This is why our education system needs to get better. We are spawning ignorant bufoons like this.

[Generation ABXY]

I don't know much bout it, haven't had the chance to read up on it, other than that apparently they managed to make our only Muslim senator cry. (http://abcn.ws/eDDn1V)

Yeah, Boehner and now Ellison. Certainly becoming en vogue recently, isn't it?

[VerseD]

Boehner is prone to tears because of alcoholism. Ellison was telling the story of Mohammed Salman Hamdani -- the volunteer medical technician rushed into the World Trade Center and died there trying to save people, and because of his religion and disappearance was suspected of involvement in the attack, until his remains were uncovered. Ellison wept when he spoke of how Hamdani's herosim was smeared by bigotry, denied because of what should be irrelevant to citizens of this country, as if Islamic faith stands before our common humanity.

"His life should not be identified as just a member of an ethnic group or just a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow Americans."

It was obviously a very sensitive matter to Ellison, the distinguished "Muslim Senator," also identified not by his achievements but by his faith. Hamdani's mother was there at the hearing.

[Generation ABXY]

I'm aware of what Ellison was speaking on... it still struck me as similarly crying for effect.

But we're welcome to disagree on that, of course.

[Hemalin]

Gotta harass the brown people some how.

[Ox]

It's interesting how willing people are to judge in the absence of evidence. Thus far, there has been exactly one day of hearings. I didn't pay particularly close attention, but I didn't see a lot of personal attacks on Muslims besides Abdul Hakim Muhammed.

I'm not sure what the statistical argument is necessarily supposed to prove. A large minority of terrorist tip-offs come from fellow Muslims, but this doesn't demonstrate the absence of a code of silence. All Mod informants are either in the Mob or closely connected to it, and yet I don't see a lot of people scoffing at the very idea of omerta. A more modern example is the "Stop Snitching" campaign. Codes of silence are very common in minority communities which fear persecution, and the more justified that fear of persecution, the more common a code of silence is. What would be absolutely shocking would be if Muslim-Americans did not have a code of silence.

What's really striking is that this entire debate is founded on assumptions about motives. Nobody doubts that Islamic terrorism is a public-policy issue with which Congress can reasonably be concerned. Nobody doubts that radicalization of the Muslim-American community, if it were to occur, would be a bad thing. Hearings are the mechanism by which Congress investigates things. Although the objections sound as if they are to the concept of hearings as "McCarthyite", I suspect the objections were far more muted when previous Congresses held hearings on Islamic terrorism. The real problem is that people presume that Rep. King, or Republicans in general, must necessarily be motivated by racism, xenophobia, and alcoholism.

[Hemalin]

The real problem is that people presume that Rep. King, or Republicans in general, must necessarily be motivated by racism, xenophobia, and alcoholism.
Now how could people possibly presume a motivation of racism from a man who sympathizes with the IRA holding hearings on Muslim radicalization? It's baffling I tell you.

[VerseD]

My objection is not with how the hearings will be conducted, but with them being held at all, especially under an obvious and vocal bigot. Let's turn this around: you bring up the mob, so what if Congress held a hearing about whether or not all Italian-Americans are in the Mafia? A hearing for whether all Catholics molest children or facilitate the molestation of children? How will we keep devout Protestant Christians from joining the Ku Klux Klan?

Of course that would be ridiculous, so why is it okay to make such vast and harmful assumptions about Muslims -- who are not even responsible for the majority of terrorist acts in the United States?

It is as foolish to think that a religion or culture or race is more prone to terrorism as it is to say that race is relative to intelligence. Public security analysts have already made reports (with less fanfare and commentary) to show that more religious American Muslims are less likely to become extremists. Circumstance causes terrorism: oppression, injustice, economic disparity, voicelessness, a lack of education. It comes from a feeling that cannot be resolved by the ham-fisted tribunal of a bigot, only inflamed. This kind of persecution or threat, whether real or only perceived, is what radicalizes a minority.

[Ox]

My objection is not with how the hearings will be conducted, but with them being held at all, especially under an obvious and vocal bigot. Let's turn this around: you bring up the mob, so what if Congress held a hearing about whether or not all Italian-Americans are in the Mafia? A hearing for whether all Catholics molest children or facilitate the molestation of children? How will we keep devout Protestant Christians from joining the Ku Klux Klan?
That's not this hearing. This hearing is not whether all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, as you'd know if you listened to the witnesses or the statements from even Rep. King (whom I do not like but would not call a bigot). This hearing is about whether some Muslim-Americans are being radicalized and how the larger community responds to this threat.

Since you bring it up, there have been numerous investigations of how Catholics respond to the threat of pedophilia in our midst. I'd be outraged if people didn't investigate that. I'll go further and point out that we have done a bad job of bringing pedophilia accusations to light in our own community and instead relied upon a code of silence. This despite the fact that a large proportion of these pedophilia charges are eventually brought to light by Catholics.

It is as foolish to think that a religion or culture or race is more prone to terrorism as it is to say that race is relative to intelligence. Public security analysts have already made reports (with less fanfare and commentary) to show that more religious American Muslims are less likely to become extremists. Circumstance causes terrorism: oppression, injustice, economic disparity, voicelessness, a lack of education. It comes from a feeling that cannot be resolved by the ham-fisted tribunal of a bigot, only inflamed. This kind of persecution or threat, whether real or only perceived, is what radicalizes a minority.
So the next terrorist attack will not be the attacker's fault, it will be King's fault.

Again, you're attacking a strawman by saying that Muslims aren't more prone to terrorism than the general population. I'll concede that they aren't. Nevertheless, terrorism by Muslims does happen, and it's reasonable to believe that there are elements in the world which seek to radicalize people under the guise of Islam. Even if Islam is not inherently a risk factor for radicalization, some mosques serve as conduits from disaffected people in this country to rhetoric and training outside of it. So far, the "persecution" to which you refer consists of inviting volunteers to come answer questions before Congress. If that's enough to make someone blow himself up, maybe you should rethink that whole "Muslims aren't inherently terrorists" thing.

[VerseD]

If I'm attacking a straw man, it's because King is stuffing one. He is not directly inciting terrorists, but his tribunal is a public expression of a culture of inflamed bigotry and unfair stereotypes -- which contributes to extremism, yes, but that doesn't even matter, unless Americans are so afraid of attack that the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are irrelevant.

You admit that Islam is not the prime drive behind extremism -- the white supremacist movement and Protestant fundamentalism are just as guilty and dangerous, and by ignoring those "native" causes of extremism and singling out one perceived as foreign, King is committing as huge and unjust an error as the Japanese internment camps of World War II.

If King was serious about investigating extremism in the United States, he would treat all the causes of that violence, not just the one so commonly demonized and misunderstood; but by targeting Islam and nothing else -- "The threat is coming from the Muslim community." -- he makes this nothing but a witch hunt.

[MagGnome]

Boehner is prone to tears because of alcoholism. Ellison was telling the story of Mohammed Salman Hamdani -- the volunteer medical technician rushed into the World Trade Center and died there trying to save people, and because of his religion and disappearance was suspected of involvement in the attack, until his remains were uncovered. Ellison wept when he spoke of how Hamdani's herosim was smeared by bigotry, denied because of what should be irrelevant to citizens of this country, as if Islamic faith stands before our common humanity.

"His life should not be identified as just a member of an ethnic group or just a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow Americans."

It was obviously a very sensitive matter to Ellison, the distinguished "Muslim Senator," also identified not by his achievements but by his faith. Hamdani's mother was there at the hearing.

Ellison is one of the few members of Congress who is actually worth a damn, and I'm proud to say I voted for him. I would do so again in a heartbeat.

[TheFlyingOrc]

King is committing as huge and unjust an error as the Japanese internment camps of World War II.

You have got to be kidding me. As huge and unjust? You wanna compare a couple of hearings to literally rounding people up?

[Ox]

unless Americans are so afraid of attack that the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are irrelevant.
Explain how the hearings violate the First Amendment.

If King was serious about investigating extremism in the United States, he would treat all the causes of that violence, not just the one so commonly demonized and misunderstood; but by targeting Islam and nothing else -- "The threat is coming from the Muslim community." -- he makes this nothing but a witch hunt.
That's ridiculous. Different causes of violence are different, and it's perfectly reasonable to address them separately. Whether the Muslim community has a code of silence doesn't really affect the likelihood of catching white supremacists, and there's little reason to suspect that Muslims and white supremacists have codes of silence (if they both do) for the same reasons. Heart disease is more dangerous than terrorism, but holding a hearing on terrorism doesn't demonstrate you have no interest in fighting heart disease.

You've already tried and convicted King, and by extension the entire hearing, without evidence. Regardless of how the hearings are conducted, there is no way to redeem them in your eyes. It's remarkable you have the gall to accuse others of prejudice.

[VerseD]

You have got to be kidding me. As huge and unjust? You wanna compare a couple of hearings to literally rounding people up?

The reason and rhetoric are the same, even if the actions are not. There is a notion that we are at war not with the nation of Japan or the faction of Al Qaeda, but with the Japanese race and the Muslim religion in its entirety. King has said that Muslims cannot be trusted in times of war. There is the same idea in both cases that a minority is somehow un-American and indistinguishable from our foreign enemy.

Explain how the hearings violate the First Amendment.

One of the justifications for the hearing is the public support by some Muslim groups and imams for Hamas in Palestine -- that is, for a faction in foreign politics -- and for publicly asking people not to comply with the FBI. That kind of speech in some members of a community makes the entire community dangerous enough to investigate. Holding a hearing does not violate First Amendment rights, but it sets a bad precedent for declaring this kind of speech un-American.

King has said before that the majority of Imams are radicals and that the Muslim community at large is a threat to American security. This is especially hypocritical for a man who once spoke vociferously in support of the IRA.

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

He complained then about being investigated as a security risk and defended his opinion as not pro-terroris, because the British are not American -- “I understand why people who are misinformed might see a parallel. The fact is, the I.R.A. never attacked the United States. And my loyalty is to the United States.” -- so violent extremism there is somehow not terrorism. Violent extremism in Palestine against the Israelis somehow is, and Muslims are undeserving of the same benefit of the doubt that he expected when he delivered the same sort of speech.

Perhaps this issue strikes more of a chord with me -- my hometown of Portland is the only city in the nation to refuse to cooperate with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, out of concern for the liberties of those being protected. We are a great clan of hippies, who have for a long time tolerated the radical speech of the Aryan Nation skinheads in our eastern desert, who speak nonsense and post this kind of shit (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__6X6hqq7nro/S364QpkhOhI/AAAAAAAAEM8/DprFGANA4Q8/s1600-h/BERETS2.JPG), by simply turning our heads away.

That's ridiculous. Different causes of violence are different, and it's perfectly reasonable to address them separately. Whether the Muslim community has a code of silence doesn't really affect the likelihood of catching white supremacists, and there's little reason to suspect that Muslims and white supremacists have codes of silence (if they both do) for the same reasons. Heart disease is more dangerous than terrorism, but holding a hearing on terrorism doesn't demonstrate you have no interest in fighting heart disease.

King is not investigating white supremacists separately or at all, as if Muslims are the only threat to Homeland Security. He's drawn a link between Islam and extremism that is not there: more religious Muslims are less likely to join the extremist movement. It is those without a firm grounding in faith that have retreated to the radical message, driven by that feeling of fear, persecution, and of being left behind: the same feeling that inspired Protestant fundamentalism and the Ku Klux Klan. The cause of that kind of violence is the same, across the board, and it is not only foolish to address the issue as if the community is responsible -- it is harmful.

The only way to redeem these hearings in my eyes is to apologize and to treat the issue of extremism in all communities together, because the root cause is the same. I would not be so prejudiced against these hearings, as you say, if the Muslim community in the States were not already so demonized in the public eye. Over forty percent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125312/religious-prejudice-stronger-against-muslims.aspx) of Americans admit to some prejudice against the religion. There was recently a protest outside a Muslim fundraiser in Orange County, Tea Party folks waving American flags and the typical signs declaring that "All Muslims Are Terrorists" and should "Go Home."

So these hearings are not just fallacious in origin, addressing extremism in a single stem instead of at the root, but they exacerbate an existing problem of discrimination in such an insensitive and untimely way.

[Ox]

King has said that Muslims cannot be trusted in times of war.
Really? Odd, I cannot find him quoted as saying that. Was this a personal conversation you two had?
One of the justifications for the hearing is the public support by some Muslim groups and imams for Hamas in Palestine -- that is, for a faction in foreign politics -- and for publicly asking people not to comply with the FBI. That kind of speech in some members of a community makes the entire community dangerous enough to investigate. Holding a hearing does not violate First Amendment rights, but it sets a bad precedent for declaring this kind of speech un-American.
You're the one who's going around declaring stuff un-American. If there's a "dangerous precedent" being set, you are the culprit.
Perhaps this issue strikes more of a chord with me -- my hometown of Portland is the only city in the nation to refuse to cooperate with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, out of concern for the liberties of those being protected.
Well, I'd certainly welcome a set of hearings to determine how much of a risk your city poses to the country.

He's drawn a link between Islam and extremism that is not there: more religious Muslims are less likely to join the extremist movement.
Now you're being so overblown I can't take you seriously. There's no link between Islam and extremism? You don't have to be a bigot to notice that a certain fraction of extremists are not merely coincidentally Muslim, they openly declare their religion is the cause of their extremism. These are not animal-rights activists who happen to read the Koran in their spare time.

Yes, more devout Muslims are less likely to become Islamic terrorists. This does not demonstrate that Islam and terrorism are completely unconnected. It merely means that the risk of becoming a terrorist is not directly correlated with one's devotion to Allah. More importantly, while devout Muslims might not join al-Qaeda, that's different from necessarily turning in some young radical who is spouting off in your mosque.
The only way to redeem these hearings in my eyes is to apologize and to treat the issue of extremism in all communities together, because the root cause is the same.
But the root cause of all extremism is not the same. The ideological motivations of Islamic terrorists and white supremacist terrorists are quite different. Moreover, even if the motivations of terrorists were identical (they are not), the motivations of their respective source communities are not. Satisfying your demands would render the hearings a pointless waste of time. That, I am beginning to suspect, is the point.

[VerseD]

You're the one who's going around declaring stuff un-American. If there's a "dangerous precedent" being set, you are the culprit.

Did I say that? Senator Ellison said during the hearing that he felt like Muslims were being smeared as un-American, if that's what you mean. King has denied charges that his trial is un-American. The House Committee on Un-American Activities was responsible for the internment of Japanese in World War II. If I introduced the term, which in truth I think is trite and non-descriptive, then I have much greater influence than I realize.

But the root cause of all extremism is not the same. The ideological motivations of Islamic terrorists and white supremacist terrorists are quite different.

I disagree. In what way do you think they differ? I'll explain my point:

In all cases of extremism, there is the fear of a way of life being undermined, a fear of losing ground and influence and being oppressed under a new and different weight -- among Muslims and American Protestants a dominance of religion is undermined by the secularism of European democracy, and among white supremacists there is a loss of the authority of a single race to modern multiculturalism. A common circumstance has forced some members of these communities into violence, fear, and anger -- and that circumstance of injustice has to be addressed if there is ever to be change. Or do you really think there is something innately violent about Islam or the Qur'an?

(Looking farther back, you see the same motive for the Black Panthers, a radicalized minority of a community suffering from injustice and voicelessness, and of the fervent ideologies of both sides in the Cold War, the American Civil War, the Thirty Years War, and the Peloponnesian War, to name the most obvious cases. If I sound overblown, it's only because I'm trying to be brief in discussing something that I have studied in depth.)

I think you're making the mistake of looking too closely at a big picture -- of course you can't make anything out from that vantage. It's true that there are specifics to distinguish the causes of extremism in this community from that, but those specifics might be addressed in different sessions of a single hearing on American radicalism in general. That has been a common criticism of how King's tribunal from the start, made by all the civil rights groups I mentioned before, as well as by other Congressmen and women and by leaders from every faith, but King has refused them all.

In supporting him you are especially ignoring the facts of King's character. He has never cited evidence for his claim that eighty percent of mosque leaders are radicals, or brought witnesses to verify his claim in the courtroom that Muslims have refused to cooperate with security agencies on terrorism cases, while his opponents have presented evidence to the contrary on both counts. Since 9-11 he has staged a personal and largely impotent crusade against Islam, including a novel he wrote (http://www.amazon.com/Vale-Tears-Peter-T-King/dp/1589790626) where a Long Island Congressman (and Peter King proxy) foils another Islamic terrorist attempt on New York City. He's shown himself to be nothing but a bullhead with a crusading spirit, and you should not feel obligated to defend him.

Well, I'd certainly welcome a set of hearings to determine how much of a risk your city poses to the country.

This city would smoke yours out any day of the week. As for all the talk we talk, that's easily dealt with. The protesters usually wear ponchos to take the brunt of milkshakes thrown at them from passing cars.

[Ox]

The House Committee on Un-American Activities was responsible for the internment of Japanese in World War II.
Yet another statement which is untrue. President Roosevelt ordered internment via Executive Order 9066 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066). HUAC did investigate certain matters regarding the camps, but it did not cause citizens to be interred (and, indeed, it could not even if it had wanted to; House committees only have the subpoena power, no authority beyond that).

In all cases of extremism, there is the fear of a way of life being undermined, a fear of losing ground and influence and being oppressed under a new and different weight -- among Muslims and American Protestants a dominance of religion is undermined by the secularism of European democracy, and among white supremacists there is a loss of the authority of a single race to modern multiculturalism. A common circumstance has forced some members of these communities into violence, fear, and anger -- and that circumstance of injustice has to be addressed if there is ever to be change. Or do you really think there is something innately violent about Islam or the Qur'an?
First, there is an alternative to your black-and-white analysis: I don't have to endorse either "all extremists are the same" or "Islam is innately a terrorist religion." I don't think all cases of extremism are the same, just like I don't think everyone who becomes a Republican or a Democrat or a soldier or a pacifist does so for precisely the same reasons -- people's motivations are complex, and attempting to boil down even the motives for joining one particular ideology is improbable. The notion that everyone who joins any extremist faith shares common characteristics can only be true if you define those characteristics so broadly everyone falls under it.

I don't think all extremism can ultimately be traced back to "fear" of being "undermined." But even if it could, everyone is afraid of their beliefs being undermined or challenged by circumstances -- Catholics as well as atheists, environmentalists as well as the Amish. If your explanation of why someone succumbs to extremism is so broad that it predicts every single person on Earth will become an extremist, your explanation is either wrong or your definition of "extremism" is pretty weird. Your analysis is so broad that it is pointless.

It's true that there are specifics to distinguish the causes of extremism in this community from that, but those specifics might be addressed in different sessions of a single hearing on American radicalism in general.
It might be -- although you'd raise the exact same objection if King dedicated a few months of a multi-year hearing to Islamic terrorism. So this is a red herring.

In supporting him you are especially ignoring the facts of King's character.
Do not mistake me for supporting King. I think your criticism is overblown and prejudiced. I despise King, but not for your reasons. Moreover, you're openly resorting to an ad hominem attack now.

He has never cited evidence for his claim that eighty percent of mosque leaders are radicals, or brought witnesses to verify his claim in the courtroom that Muslims have refused to cooperate with security agencies on terrorism cases, while his opponents have presented evidence to the contrary on both counts.
Hmmm... evidence, you say... if only there were some sort of procedure by which a House committee could call witnesses in and hear from them... perhaps a "listening" or something of that nature...

[Slack3r78]

Terry Nichols. Tim McVeigh. Ted Kasczinski. Eric Rudolph.

Yeah, America's homegrown terrorists tend to be Muslim radicals.

[ShivaX]

Terry Nichols. Tim McVeigh. Ted Kasczinski. Eric Rudolph.

Yeah, America's homegrown terrorists tend to be Muslim radicals.

White people aren't terrorists.

see IRA

[Hemalin]

Hmmm... evidence, you say... if only there were some sort of procedure by which a House committee could call witnesses in and hear from them... perhaps a "listening" or something of that nature...
Sounds good. How many law enforcement officials will be interviewed?

Oh, how about the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. I'm sure he has some important information to add.
“Many of our tips to uncover active terrorist plots here in the United States have come from the Muslim community, so we have to make quite clear that communities are part of the solution and not part of the problem and we do that through using a variety of tools” said Leiter.

[ShivaX]

Sounds good. How many law enforcement officials will be interviewed?

Oh, how about the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. I'm sure he has some important information to add.

Don't worry its okay even though everyone remotely involved in counter terrorism says its a terrible fucking idea. King knows better. Fucking brown people are holding out on us.

[VerseD]

Yet another statement which is untrue. President Roosevelt ordered internment via Executive Order 9066 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066). HUAC did investigate certain matters regarding the camps, but it did not cause citizens to be interred (and, indeed, it could not even if it had wanted to; House committees only have the subpoena power, no authority beyond that).

I dealt words in haste and should have been more careful with them; you're right to call me out. My point was that the term "un-American" had been used before this thread.

I don't think all extremism can ultimately be traced back to "fear" of being "undermined." But even if it could, everyone is afraid of their beliefs being undermined or challenged by circumstances -- Catholics as well as atheists, environmentalists as well as the Amish. If your explanation of why someone succumbs to extremism is so broad that it predicts every single person on Earth will become an extremist, your explanation is either wrong or your definition of "extremism" is pretty weird. Your analysis is so broad that it is pointless.

You hit it on the head, and miss the point. Mine is a broad definition of extremism because all of humanity is susceptible to it when pushed. This push has driven both Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre) and environmentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism) to violent extremism, as well as Muslims. (There are no atheist terrorist groups that I know of, although Kaczynski was certainly no man of God; and as for the Amish, they are, as always, innocent of everything.)

I don't think I'm seeing the world in black and white by understanding it through a trend of history that is common to too many incidents to be coincidence. A community (or individual) pushed off-center by injustice or by radical change, hardens in identity and finds salvation through violence, as surely as an animal backed into a corner. If you can understand that sense of fervent desperation, you can understand what drives people (who are, after all, like you) into extremism. There's an excellent German film about the psychology of a gang of terrorists called The Baader Meinhof Complex that I recommend.

There's a subtle distinction I'm making here: that an outside influence of society, power, and fear can predispose a community to violence, though that community is not innately violent; but it is the distinction between addressing a disease and gouging at the symptoms.

I'm also curious: how do you think Islamic extremism differs so greatly from other forms of extremism, that it should be treated separately?

You'd raise the exact same objection if King dedicated a few months of a multi-year hearing to Islamic terrorism. So this is a red herring.

Put words in my mouth, will you? Well, I'm not that one-dimensional a man, and no, I wouldn't object to a hearing on extremism that included Islamic extremism alongside Protestant fundamentalism and white supremacy and other forms -- I would call that reasonable and a right action for the House Homeland Security Committee. Native extremists are a danger -- there was an attempted bombing of a Christmas tree lighting in my hometown just last year -- but not all extremists are Mulsims, nor even the majority. The danger won't come close to being resolved by targeting them alone.

Do not mistake me for supporting King. I think your criticism is overblown and prejudiced. I despise King, but not for your reasons. Moreover, you're openly resorting to an ad hominem attack now.

You're mistaking honest perplexity for an ad hominem attack. I'm happy that we can at least agree on one point: contempt for Peter King, though arrived at by different roads.

Hmmm... evidence, you say... if only there were some sort of procedure by which a House committee could call witnesses in and hear from them... perhaps a "listening" or something of that nature...

It is ridiculous that Peter King has so far presented no testimony to validate any of his assumptions, while the opposition has put forth Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles as chief witness and also Michael Leiter, as mentioned by Hemalin, to prove the opposite.

It is also ridiculous to think that King could support his claim that eighty percent of mosques are extremist, which he obviously made up.

[Ultima Thulian]

Just another senator making a name for himself by engaging in behavior that would likely appeal to his constituency (or at the very least to make himself known). Of course, this behavior has been decisive in the counter-terrorism community. If King was truly worried about terrorism, he would likely STFU and listen to the people whose job it is to...stop terrorism.

Let's get real. This fuckhead is probably going to make a 2012 senate run and he's trying to get headlines.

[Ox]

(There are no atheist terrorist groups that I know of, although Kaczynski was certainly no man of God; and as for the Amish, they are, as always, innocent of everything.)
Emma Goldman comes to mind.

I don't think I'm seeing the world in black and white by understanding it through a trend of history that is common to too many incidents to be coincidence.
You're being black-and-white by suggesting that there's no relevant differences between individuals or groups in how they respond to this pressure. "Humans tend to be violent when frightened" -- indisputably true, but horror-movie screenings tend not to end in real-life bloodbaths. The modern world threatens all beliefs, and all Muslims are threatened by the things which endanger Islam; yet not all Muslims are extremist. What's the difference between Muslims who resort to violence and Muslims who just quietly feel insecure sometimes? That's the interesting question, not whether all terrorists are really part of one great big typology. Especially since I presume we have no interest in withdrawing the threats to Islam.
I'm also curious: how do you think Islamic extremism differs so greatly from other forms of extremism, that it should be treated separately?
For one thing, it's inspired by God and offers tangible benefits even if you die. People sacrifice themselves for all sorts of reasons, but I'd rather be an Islamic suicide bomber than a Communist one. For another, it's got a significant element of historical grievance -- in large part founded on a misunderstanding of history and therefore even more potent. It's got a significant international support network. It's a total war movement, unlike some other terrorist groups: although al-Qaeda does have some compunctions, it seems to view all non-Muslims' lives, including children, as equally worthless.

None of these are unique to Islamic extremism, of course. But each distinguishes it from some other flavors of extremism, and it usually makes more sense to address an issue as specifically as possible rather than speak in generalities that provide no guidance for action.

If you think Protestant fundamentalist violence is a serious problem in this country, call for an investigation. I'm not sure I'm convinced it's an endemic issue, but we can discuss that. Don't complain that King isn't addressing issues in the order you'd prefer and therefore we should address no issues at all.

[ShivaX]

If you think Protestant fundamentalist violence is a serious problem in this country, call for an investigation. I'm not sure I'm convinced it's an endemic issue, but we can discuss that. Don't complain that King isn't addressing issues in the order you'd prefer and therefore we should address no issues at all.

Or we could listen to actual experts who say what hes doing is a terrible fucking idea.

[VerseD]

I can't agree that Congress should address only Islam without addressing any other source of extremist violence. It would be akin to selecting only one area of the budget to make cuts from, ignoring all the other areas of expense, and ignoring the more subtle and difficult solution. To treat only one subset of radicalism ignores the greater and more elusive issues, in favor of those that are more apparent and self-validating.

Ox, you bring up God as inspiring terrorism, but I think it’s more complicated than that. The majority of Muslims will tell you that violence has nothing to do with their religion, and the entire sect of Shi’ites has renounced it. Look at those nineteen 9-11 hijackers: all but four from Saudi Arabia, where the regime preaches the austere Wahabi code and then lives in the most ostentatious luxury, the tallest towers and BMWs plated in platinum, and yet permitting no dissent to their reign, and funded and supported and armed by the United States. It's easy to pretend that Allah and Paradise are the cause they died for, but I think politics are more to blame.

I think there must be a unity to extremist motive, for why else would so many groups of such varying creeds behave with such similar radicalism? The Army of God is an American Christian terrorist group that attacks abortion clinics. Nine members of Hutaree, the "Christian Warriors," were arrested in 2010 for a plot to kill police officers using explosives and firearms. In both cases I would like to think that a fear of change is the cause, rather than a divine madness. A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that Hutaree was motivated by "anger over the changing demographics of the country, the soaring public debt, the troubled economy and an array of initiatives by President Barack Obama that have been branded 'socialist' or even 'fascist' by the heated rhetoric of his political opponents."

Here is your terrorist typology: power, fear, anger, politics, and not a drop of God beyond the use of His name as an excuse for action. There is no difference between Hutaree and Al Qaeda but scale, success, and the particular religion that has gotten wrapped up and warped into it.

As I said, there are specifics that distinguish radical groups from one another, but we should treat those in separate sessions of a single hearing on extremism -- as statesmen, counter-terrorism and civil liberties experts, and civil and religious leaders have all advised. I'll concede that such a hearing might be biting off too much, that King's might get at solutions particular to Islamic radicalism more speedily, but it is so tactless and undiplomatic that the polarizing effect of holding this hearing undoes any benefits the conversation might have.

First, it is closed-minded for this hearing to pretend that there is nothing in common between the extremist groups in America, and second it is harmful and unfair to investigate Islam exclusively, without addressing or intending to address any other group. Since 9-11, Islam has been impugned and demonized for its radical minority in a way that no other equally culpable group has had to face. King's trial feeds into that -- and the conversation becomes about that controversy, rather than about radicalism itself.

This is a tangential issue, but I am defiantly interested in withdrawing the threats to Islam: the support for regional dictators, the invasions and interventions, the anti-Muslim rhetoric, the irrational fear of Islamism, and this trial included in a sociology that radicalizes the victims and demeans our entire nation.

[Ultima Thulian]

I do think Ox was correct though in stating that this new brand of terrorism offers challenges that are arguably greater to surmount than the old terrorism. Globalization and the digital age allows for mass communication on even the most modest of budgets. Availability of weapons, both standard and nuclear, are at their highest peak of access in decades. And this extremist Islamic face of terrorism does not merely use violence to achieve political means, but ones of fundamentalist religious ideology that puts them beyond reasoning or modest methods of counter-insurgency. It calls for something of a higher calibre.

Yes, there are certainly political motives in Al-Queada's and the Taliban's measures. But even they are tainted with religious zealotry. They want to restore the ancient Caliphate and impose Sharia at any cost. Furthermore, as Ox mentioned, they have absolutely no regard for any form of life, including their own, and a large part of that stems from their creed, not their political ambitions. That's what makes them such a threat. Are these groups built and enlarged due to political/economic/societal woes? Certainly, but they appeal to grievances much more sinister than that. It appeals to the worst kind of xenophobia and the worst kind of reckless abandon.

The Army of God, since you brought them up and made the comparison, is not only much, much, smaller and much, much less global than the aforementioned Islamic terrorists groups, and their methods are much more pointed and direct. They target primarily abortion doctors and clinics. They're much more predictable and local, in other words.

Now take that into account and compare it to a group that would use nuclear weapons to kill anyone and anything that did not subscribe to their religious lunacy to a "T" (and even they'll likely kill you for other reasons, perhaps race-based or class-based ones). That attack indiscriminately and randomly. That do not fear death or incarceration. That are planted in places all across the globe.

Now, are these elements new to the face of terrorism? No, but they are becoming more and more predominant, and they're certainly more dangerous than their 20th century counterparts. Generally speaking (again...generally), terrorism in the 20th century is best described as usually being nationalistic (e.g. IRA), in response or in part causal to revolution, and since their motives were largely political, there was a method to their madness. This new breed of terrorism seeks destruction for its own sake, is heterarchical, and the religious and ideological motivations often trump the political ones.

Again, this brand of terrorism is not new per se, but it has become predominant as a threat to the Western world, much more so than the nationalistic liberation fronts of the old terrorism. Not acknowledging this is naive, I think.

That being said, I do agree that King is being foolhardy in his attempt to root out radicalism in the States. Indeed, I argue that this is just him trying to garner attention for next year's election, and if he were sincere in his motives to fight terrorism he would then be cooperating with counter-terrorism cells instead of ignoring them.

But I grow weary of hearing the whole "but Muslims are being maltreated because of the actions of a very few!" Maltreated how? Aside from the occasional idiotic redneck doing bigoted nonsense, it has been the position of current and past two administrations to NOT treat Islam in an unjust light. Both Obama and Bush have stressed repeatedly that this is not a war on Islam, and we haven't ended any amicable relationships with peaceful Muslim nations. We have yet to pull a WWII style coup and throw Muslim-Americans into interment camps. Shit, most rational people and most civilized nations have stressed, time and time again, that this is not a war against Islam, and has never taken that element. No one gives two shits about Muslims in Detroit. This is a REGIONAL issue. We care about Muslims in the Middle East because, lo and behold, that is where most of this theocratic bullying and nonsense is coming from.

Personally, I think it's much more sad that, even after several Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil, that every time somebody condemns Islamofascism they have to immediately add a dubious disclaimer about Islam being a religion of peace and that not all Muslims are bad. Why must we engage in spouting insipid redundancies to prevent the hurt feelings of supposedly peaceful people?

[Ox]

Ox, you bring up God as inspiring terrorism, but I think it’s more complicated than that. The majority of Muslims will tell you that violence has nothing to do with their religion, and the entire sect of Shi’ites has renounced it. Look at those nineteen 9-11 hijackers: all but four from Saudi Arabia, where the regime preaches the austere Wahabi code and then lives in the most ostentatious luxury, the tallest towers and BMWs plated in platinum, and yet permitting no dissent to their reign, and funded and supported and armed by the United States. It's easy to pretend that Allah and Paradise are the cause they died for, but I think politics are more to blame.
That's interesting, but it's worth noting that Islamic terrorists believe they are fighting for religion. You're sort of postulating a false consciousness where what the terrorists think they are fighting for is not what they "really" want in some sense.

I think there must be a unity to extremist motive, for why else would so many groups of such varying creeds behave with such similar radicalism?
The only similarity I see in the groups you identify is that they are all violently trying to effect their goals. But similar tactics don't imply "a unity to extremist motive": otherwise, everyone who has ever used violence would have the same motive as everyone else.

This is a tangential issue, but I am defiantly interested in withdrawing the threats to Islam: the support for regional dictators, the invasions and interventions, the anti-Muslim rhetoric, the irrational fear of Islamism, and this trial included in a sociology that radicalizes the victims and demeans our entire nation.
And what about Christian evangelization? Our atheistic public mores? Laws against bigamy? These are all challenges to certain Muslim sects, and the first is certainly a challenge to all Muslim sects. Don't confuse the passing irritations of the moment with the genuinely existential threats that we pose to Islam.

[VerseD]

That's interesting, but it's worth noting that Islamic terrorists believe they are fighting for religion. You're sort of postulating a false consciousness where what the terrorists think they are fighting for is not what they "really" want in some sense.

That's exactly what I'm postulating. Extremists use religion to craft a philosophy for what is a reaction to circumstances of politics and power, and you cannot eliminate extremism by targeting the symptom of religious fervor, only by understanding the disease that leads to it.

Take, for an example, the Crusades -- the expressed purpose is the destruction of the infidel and the salvation of those who follow the call of God; but, if you look closer at the issue, the real reasons were political: to expand and preserve Christian and Papal influence, to rid Europe of the great clan of non-inheritors, those second and third sons and the bastards of nobles with weapons and without land who were turning Europe into a melee, by sending them to war on the heathen. Then look at how the Crusaders conducted themselves in the east -- not as holy men, but as avaricious adventurers out for plunder. Salvation is how they justify themselves, but it is not what they really seemed to want.

I look in the same way on the nineteen hijackers -- all men who talked and talked of religion, and who also spent the last few weeks before the attacks carousing about Miami, drinking heavily and visiting strip clubs and getting in fights with their American girlfriends. It suggests there's something disingenuous about their outspoken religion. None of them had a firm grounding in Islam, yet it has become the scapegoat for all our ire.

The only similarity I see in the groups you identify is that they are all violently trying to effect their goals. But similar tactics don't imply "a unity to extremist motive": otherwise, everyone who has ever used violence would have the same motive as everyone else.

Now you're the one being black and white. We are talking about a particular kind of violence, and as a lawyer you should understand that just as there are differences between murder and manslaughter, terrorist violence is distinct from other types by its motive, its psychology, and its sociology. If you cannot see anything similar between Al Qaeda and Hutaree but method, then there is nothing more to say. I would be chasing my tail by pursuing the topic further.

And what about Christian evangelization? Our atheistic public mores? Laws against bigamy? These are all challenges to certain Muslim sects, and the first is certainly a challenge to all Muslim sects. Don't confuse the passing irritations of the moment with the genuinely existential threats that we pose to Islam.

I've never met a Muslim who called the USA anything like an "existential threat," but I have met Muslims abroad who are astonished at our political involvement in the Middle East, and I have met American Muslims who are offended by the way they are treated in the media and by political rhetoric. What you call "passing irritations" ruin, demean, oppress, and terminate lives in a way that the existence of Western secularism does not. That direct attack on Islam -- or similar attacks on Protestant fundamentalism or on white supremacy -- is what turns a general disapproval into a desperate willingness to die.

[VerseD]

And this extremist Islamic face of terrorism does not merely use violence to achieve political means, but ones of fundamentalist religious ideology that puts them beyond reasoning or modest methods of counter-insurgency. It calls for something of a higher calibre.

Try reasoning the politics of abortion or gay marriage with a Protestant fundamentalist, then tell me about how Islamic fundamentalists are different.

Yes, there are certainly political motives in Al-Queada's and the Taliban's measures. But even they are tainted with religious zealotry. They want to restore the ancient Caliphate and impose Sharia at any cost.

They want to unify the Arab world, end Western imperialism, and restore native legal traditions, and these are not a political goals? Don't misunderstand: I'm not supporting that agenda, but trying to distance this from a discussion of religion. Likewise, my only purpose in bringing up the Army of God and Hutaree was to illustrate my point that Christian extremists resort to violence for the same reasons as Islamic extremists, and that in both cases the religion is ancillary to the real goals.

You know, our great and terrible allies in Saudi Arabia impose Sharia law in the most classical sense, except for the wealthy princelings, who do as they please. It was, in fact, the hypocrisy and supposed apostasy of the royal family that turned Osama bin Ladin's attention to that family's biggest supporter, the United States. I think he did not want to spread Islam and Sharia to America, but he wanted the dictators of his country to follow the same harsh laws they imposed on their subjects. It sounds reasonable, even just and right for them to do so; and it is only because it was also impossible to achieve that Bin Ladin resorted to violence.

I want to point out that Al Qaeda is not the homogeneous organization you are imagining. After 9-11, hundreds of extremist groups in places all over the world, with wildly divergent and regional goals, all claimed, "We are Al Qaeda," riding on the coattails of the most successful terrorists in history. Some of them have contacts with Al Qaeda leaders at the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, others operate alone. America is not the primary target, just a distant threat to their general goals of controlling regional politics.

Are these groups built and enlarged due to political/economic/societal woes? Certainly, but they appeal to grievances much more sinister than that. It appeals to the worst kind of xenophobia and the worst kind of reckless abandon.

I can think of examples of xenophobia and recklessness on both sides of the religious divide. Far worse is the xenophobia towards people who are not even foreign, but Americans, born in America and just as patriotic as anyone else. Don't forget that this trial is not about the foreign threat of radical groups, but about the threat posed by our neighbors, all lumped together because of their religion.

We care about Muslims in the Middle East because, lo and behold, that is where most of this theocratic bullying and nonsense is coming from.

It might surprise you to learn that Muslim countries in the Middle East are also where some of the worst political injustices occur, many of them sponsored or at least permitted by the United States. Dictatorships were imposed on Africa and South Asia by the colonial powers, and Arabia was divided up by the victors of the War to End All Wars, all to allow more convenient access to the wealth under the soil. I would suggest that a violent reaction to the West is a result of this political history, and not something written in the Quran.

For a lot of Westerners, Islamic extremism is more terrifying than other forms of extremism because Islam is an unknown, and is easy to dehumanize and be made into some frightening monster. But the motives behind many terrorist attackers, including Osama bin Ladin, are easily traceable to politics. There's a good book on the subject called Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, which deals peripherally with extremism, but if you are interested in Al Qaeda and American involvement in the Muslim world I would recommend it.

[Ultima Thulian]

Try reasoning the politics of abortion or gay marriage with a Protestant fundamentalist, then tell me about how Islamic fundamentalists are different.

I already did. If abortion was illegal then the Army of God would likely cease to exist. They have a singular goal with a pointed political aim. This new breed of terrorism, though very similar, is different in having a much broader set of goals, using violence as a means to an end and not just necessarily a political reason, is typically more networked, and pose a greater likelihood in their ability to acquire and willingness to use chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry.

This is not a new theory nor is it merely reactionary to 9/11. See Ian O. Lesser's Countering the New Terrorism, Walter Laquer's The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Destruction, for pre-9/11 counters to new terrorism. Post 9/11 examples, for obvious reasons, are also numerous. Bruce Hoffman's Inside Terrorism comes to mind, as do many others.

You don't have to agree with me that there are stark differences in these branches of terrorism, but do not pretend like there isn't one single counter to your question.

edit: I see I misread your challenge. Are you asking me to tell you why Protestant extremism is different than Islamic extremism? Because generally, I find all forms of religious fundamentalism to be akin to a disease of the mind and to be a threat to the good of civilization as a whole. Okay, so ALL forms of religious extremism suck. This helps your argument how?

They want to unify the Arab world, end Western imperialism, and restore native legal traditions, and these are not a political goals? Don't misunderstand: I'm not supporting that agenda, but trying to distance this from a discussion of religion. Likewise, my only purpose in bringing up the Army of God and Hutaree was to illustrate my point that Christian extremists resort to violence for the same reasons as Islamic extremists, and that in both cases the religion is ancillary to the real goals.
Then you chose a very poor example in using the Army of God. Aside from...oh, I don't know, saying they're God's personal ass-kicking force, their primary goal is the stoppage of abortion. Their ONLY reasoning and reward is divine in nature. Tell me: what political gains would they get by shooting a doctor in the head? They do this because they feel vindicated by their religion. They do this because they feel their dogma demands it. They think God is talking to them, commanding them to kill. Does that make them exemplary of the Christian community as a whole? No. Does that necessarily mean Christianity is bad? No, but I will be honest and state I'm not a fan of theism in any form. But does mean that religion is merely ancillary to their goals? No. It seems clear that religion is their primary motivation and it is in religious texts that they validate their heinous crimes. Many (but not all) extremist Muslim terrorists are similar in this regard.

You know, our great and terrible allies in Saudi Arabia impose Sharia law in the most classical sense, except for the wealthy princelings, who do as they please. It was, in fact, the hypocrisy and supposed apostasy of the royal family that turned Osama bin Ladin's attention to that family's biggest supporter, the United States. I think he did not want to spread Islam and Sharia to America, but he wanted the dictators of his country to follow the same harsh laws they imposed on their subjects. It sounds reasonable, even just and right for them to do so; and it is only because it was also impossible to achieve that Bin Ladin resorted to violence.And? You say in one breath you are not condoning these actions, and then immediately say that perhaps Bin Ladin was reasonable and correct and resorted to violence only because it was is his only option. You can be an apologist for these theocratic murderers if you want, but don't suggest I do the same, especially if the best you can do is to essentially state that America's alliance with Saudi Arabia negates the validity of any argument on religion's affect on new terrorism. And he doesn't want to spread Sharia to America, and the world? Get lucid. If Bin Laden had the ability and means to do so he would impose theocracy in every place he could possibly do. However, such a thing is an impossibility, and he knows that, so he keeps his goals more modest in scope.

I want to point out that Al Qaeda is not the homogeneous organization you are imagining. I never said it was necessarily homogeneous, but I am saying its more networked and global in nature than say, the IRA or the Army of God, and that is part of the reason why it's more dangerous and harder to fight. America, Spain, Britain, etc etc etc. How many countries have been subject to attacks that Al-Queda and the Taliban have PERSONALLY taken credit for? Fucking much, that's how many.


After 9-11, hundreds of extremist groups in places all over the world, with wildly divergent and regional goals, all claimed, "We are Al Qaeda," riding on the coattails of the most successful terrorists in history. Some of them have contacts with Al Qaeda leaders at the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, others operate alone. America is not the primary target [emphasis mine], just a distant threat to their general goals of controlling regional politics.http://i56.tinypic.com/2dirss6.jpg

Oh, okay.

I can think of examples of xenophobia and recklessness on both sides of the religious divide. Far worse is the xenophobia towards people who are not even foreign, but Americans, born in America and just as patriotic as anyone else. Don't forget that this trial is not about the foreign threat of radical groups, but about the threat posed by our neighbors, all lumped together because of their religion.I haven't forgotten. Indeed, I criticized King's methods and conceded that point to you.

It might surprise you to learn that Muslim countries in the Middle East are also where some of the worst political injustices occur, many of them sponsored or at least permitted by the United States. Dictatorships were imposed on Africa and South Asia by the colonial powers, and Arabia was divided up by the victors of the War to End All Wars, all to allow more convenient access to the wealth under the soil. I would suggest that a violent reaction to the West is a result of this political history, and not something written in the Quran.Since I just got done saying the Middle East is where much of the fucked up lunacy goes on in the world, no, I would not be surprised to learn that Muslim countries in the Middle East are also where some of the worst political injustices occur and are sometimes sponsored by the U.S.



For a lot of Westerners, Islamic extremism is more terrifying than other forms of extremism because Islam is an unknown, and is easy to dehumanize and be made into some frightening monster. But the motives behind many terrorist attackers, including Osama bin Ladin, are easily traceable to politics. There's a good book on the subject called Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, which deals peripherally with extremism, but if you are interested in Al Qaeda and American involvement in the Muslim world I would recommend it.

Or maybe it's more terrifying because we've been subject to Islamic terrorism on multiple occasions? I won't argue that part of the demonizing comes from ignorance. It is by far a huge part of the fear that is going on. I agree. But another reason is because American's have been subject to Islamic terrorism on our own soil multiple times now. 9/11 isn't the first effort to blow up the WTC. There is the USS Cole incident, and many many more examples of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremists on our soil. Not to mention the ones we've actually been able to stop before they happened.

For all your rigmarole about how poor American's are treating Muslims, you haven't cited one specific example of any of it. After 9/11 only one major revenge killing was noted. It was by a man named Mark Stroman and he's in death row in Texas. I won't deny there is some Islamophobia going on, and that there are a lot of sour attitudes going on in this country. I also agree King is full of shit and is trying to use those attitudes to bolster his political profile. But, OVERALL, America and Americans have been very good to local, domestic Muslims. Our treatment of Muslims here in our borders is certainly better than the treatment many of our European counterparts (such as France) are giving Muslims. And our treatment is sure as hell better than the treatment many Muslim countries in the Middle East give to Westerners.

[VerseD]

You call me an apologist for trying to understand what would motivate someone to orchestrate the murder of three thousand people, and then dismiss it all as "fucked up lunacy." Do you then disagree with any investigation into the root cause of extremism: why investigate when the cause is only irrational insanity? There is no way to have a conversation about extremism without looking past the most obvious and terrible end of it, of which nobody but the perpetrators could approve.

Of course terrorism is a threat, and I would like to resolve it in the most effective way. I brought up politics, and tried to explain how they motivated 9-11, because I think the best solution to extremism is to address those political issues that drive people to become more fundamental in their religion, extreme in their convictions, and desperate in enacting them; while the worst and most unreasonable solution would be to criticize and malign the religion that has become a costume for violent acts. From my point of view, it’s not just offensive to call Islam a violent religion, it is a misdirection of effort, akin to clipping the highest flowers and leaving the low weeds in a garden.

I'm struck by the suspicion that you agree with my premise: that a hearing on all forms of American radicalism would be less offensive and more productive than a hearing on Islam alone. That is all I'm saying, and I am by no means trying to vindicate or justify terrorism. My argument with Ox was to persuade him that there are enough similarities in how Americans of different creeds become radicalized (despite differences in scale or the methods of violence) for us to investigate the source of those extremist groups all at once. But I think we can agree on that, so no reason to argue.

For all your rigmarole about how poor American's are treating Muslims, you haven't cited one specific example of any of it. After 9/11 only one major revenge killing was noted. It was by a man named Mark Stroman and he's in death row in Texas. I won't deny there is some Islamophobia going on, and that there are a lot of sour attitudes going on in this country. I also agree King is full of shit and is trying to use those attitudes to bolster his political profile. But, OVERALL, America and Americans have been very good to local, domestic Muslims. Our treatment of Muslims here in our borders is certainly better than the treatment many of our European counterparts (such as France) are giving Muslims. And our treatment is sure as hell better than the treatment many Muslim countries in the Middle East give to Westerners.

You bring up a good and interesting point. Overall, Muslims are very well treated in America -- perhaps as a little mysterious, but we do our best to amend that ignorance. It warmed my heart to see the jump in sales for translated Qurans and other books on Islam that followed 9-11. Our reaction was not fear and rage, but an earnest wish for understanding. Bush also helped this by pointing out the good Muslims in our community, and Obama has continued that.

However, and I think you agree, that this fair treatment does not mean that King is justified in targeting Muslims for his investigation. It is all politics, as you say, but it is also unjust and unfair (not to mention harmful, according to counter-terrorism experts), and I will continue to object to it no matter how well Muslims get by outside King's courtroom.

It is interesting to compare the state of Muslims in America to that of Muslims in Europe. As you say, they are treated much poorly across the Atlantic, with fire-eating anti-immigrant rhetoric in Italy and now Holland. But the reason may not be immediately apparent. Muslims who move to America are the cream of the crop: only the best or the wealthiest doctors, engineers, and professionals make it through the gauntlet to receive a Green Card or citizenship. To be blunt, our Muslims are better than average. The same is not true in Europe, where they steal across the Mediterranean into France, Italy, and Greece as illegal refugees, or were transferred forcibly after war, like the Turks in Germany. They are impoverished in class, education, wealth, access, etcetera -- closer in status to Latin-Americans than Muslim-Americans, and treated with the same wary contempt.

However your last statement is flat out wrong. I was treated as an honored guest when I visited the Middle East. I never went to a town in Syria without being invited out for tea and conversation, or without someone approaching to ask if I needed assistance and to thank me for visiting their country. In fact, I never met any Westerner who had been poorly treated by a Turk, Arab, or Persian, and I met plenty who had been treated far better than I. My friends also went to Iran, where they were invited by strangers to come home to dinner or to stay for days, and always told about how Iranians hate Ahmadinejad and love America, and not to listen to the news.

Here is one thing the Muslims excel at: they generally have such horrible governments that it is easy for them to look past the actions of foreign presidents, parliaments, and armies, and to see that people are separate -- or rather that people are all the same.

"I don't care!" cried one Syrian to me on a memorable night, -- "you are American, but you see, we are friends. We are the same. We both have eyes and heart and soul -- and ass. It's our presidents, our governments, our armies that have problem. It is not our business."

I doubt that an obvious Muslim (just as I was an obvious Westerner) would receive the same treatment in the West. In fact, I have a pertinent anecdote that I will post here, because it is always better to have a human face as evidence. In this case the face is that of a Kuwaiti engineer named Hossein, a dark man with soft cheeks and a long black beard, wearing the robe and keffiyeh of a traditional Muslim. I met him in Aleppo and he was on a road trip with his friends, having retired a few years before, and he told me this story over tea:

When living in London, Hossein and his family had for a neighbor a callous old bag who continually called the police on the interloping Arabs, and reported them for running over cats or leaving their dog out in the cold, falsifying everything. Hossein asked her, “Why are you doing this?” “Because I don’t like you Arabs,” was the vicious reply. Now there came a day when this old Margaret slipped and fell in the tub. She called her sons, daughters, brothers, ex-husband, boyfriend, girlfriends, who were all sorry but very busy, and, in the last resort, called her neighbor. It would have been unseemly for Hossein to see her, so his wife helped the poor lady dress, and Hossein drove her to the hospital, where he was arrested on suspicion of causing her injury, to spend the night in jail.

Two weeks later, fresh from the hospital, Madame Crusader came calling at the door, weeping, apologizing, asking how the Muslim could have helped her after all that happened. “I am your neighbor,” he said. “Of course I helped you.” Madame Reformed invited the Hossein family to visit her Christian church, where a cousin confronted them, and said, “This is a House of God! If I can’t get into a mosque, you shouldn’t be allowed here.” Hossein corrected the man quietly and attended the curious service of those who eat their own God, who is three and not one.

I said to Hossein that we Christians were supposed to love our neighbor, and treat others as we wanted them to treat us, but that these messages often lost themselves in winding corridors of hate and prejudice and polemics. Despite our differences, we came to a verdict of peaceful cohabitation, under a universal God.

I was embarrassed to hear Hossein's story, because I had never been treated with anything but the utmost kindness by a Muslim. I made friends that I keep to this day, and liked the climate so much that I stayed for months and yearn to return. I never felt threatened or impugned. I admit that my experience is the reason that I defend Islam so vociferously (and at such intolerable length); but if you won't stick up for your neighbors, then what kind of a man are you?

[Ultima Thulian]

You call me an apologist for trying to understand what would motivate someone to orchestrate the murder of three thousand people, and then dismiss it all as "fucked up lunacy." Do you then disagree with any investigation into the root cause of extremism: why investigate when the cause is only irrational insanity? There is no way to have a conversation about extremism without looking past the most obvious and terrible end of it, of which nobody but the perpetrators could approve.

Of course terrorism is a threat, and I would like to resolve it in the most effective way. I brought up politics, and tried to explain how they motivated 9-11, because I think the best solution to extremism is to address those political issues that drive people to become more fundamental in their religion, extreme in their convictions, and desperate in enacting them; while the worst and most unreasonable solution would be to criticize and malign the religion that has become a costume for violent acts. From my point of view, it’s not just offensive to call Islam a violent religion, it is a misdirection of effort, akin to clipping the highest flowers and leaving the low weeds in a garden.

I'm struck by the suspicion that you agree with my premise: that a hearing on all forms of American radicalism would be less offensive and more productive than a hearing on Islam alone. That is all I'm saying, and I am by no means trying to vindicate or justify terrorism. My argument with Ox was to persuade him that there are enough similarities in how Americans of different creeds become radicalized (despite differences in scale or the methods of violence) for us to investigate the source of those extremist groups all at once. But I think we can agree on that, so no reason to argue.

Fair enough. If I misunderstood your intentions, I apologize and withdraw my remarks. However, to clarify, I do think questioning the motives of terrorism is obviously a good idea, and trying to see things from as many points of view as possible is wise. That should go without question, but there are those who, under some spell of super-patriotism, find America to be infallible. This is seen in extremely conservative circles, and I find such a thing to be part of the problem, not the solution. However, on the opposite end, there are those who are utterly too quick to morally indict America for every transgression it has made in regards to foreign policy in the Middle East, but act as apologists for even the most heinous of Islamic extremists. This too, is abhorrent to me and I feel it is part of the problem and not part of the solution. However, I understand now you were merely playing Devil's Advocate.

I do think that saying "all forms of radicalization should be studied equally" to be somewhat wrong. I do think all forms should be studied to the best we can possibly accomplish, but not on equal measures. Some threats are more prominent than others. Islamic terrorism has cost more lives and collateral damage in this country than anti-abortionist terrorism in the past decade. It seems like a silly aim to study both equally. But, I do agree both should be treated with disgust and both should be considered a danger and both should have time devoted to tackling them. But equal time and inquiry? I don't think that is responsible.

edit: That being said, a hearing on just basic radicalization would be more fair. I agree. But I think we both had the right of it when we said King would be wise to listen to the counter-terrorism experts and shut his piehole. If an inquiry had to be made, making broader in scope would avoid unnecessary antagonizing.

You bring up a good and interesting point. Overall, Muslims are very well treated in America -- perhaps as a little mysterious, but we do our best to amend that ignorance. It warmed my heart to see the jump in sales for translated Qurans and other books on Islam that followed 9-11. Our reaction was not fear and rage, but an earnest wish for understanding. Bush also helped this by pointing out the good Muslims in our community, and Obama has continued that.

However, and I think you agree, that this fair treatment does not mean that King is justified in targeting Muslims for his investigation. It is all politics, as you say, but it is also unjust and unfair (not to mention harmful, according to counter-terrorism experts), and I will continue to object to it no matter how well Muslims get by outside King's courtroom.

It is interesting to compare the state of Muslims in America to that of Muslims in Europe. As you say, they are treated much poorly across the Atlantic, with fire-eating anti-immigrant rhetoric in Italy and now Holland. But the reason may not be immediately apparent. Muslims who move to America are the cream of the crop: only the best or the wealthiest doctors, engineers, and professionals make it through the gauntlet to receive a Green Card or citizenship. To be blunt, our Muslims are better than average. The same is not true in Europe, where they steal across the Mediterranean into France, Italy, and Greece as illegal refugees, or were transferred forcibly after war, like the Turks in Germany. They are impoverished in class, education, wealth, access, etcetera -- closer in status to Latin-Americans than Muslim-Americans, and treated with the same wary contempt.

However your last statement is flat out wrong. I was treated as an honored guest when I visited the Middle East. I never went to a town in Syria without being invited out for tea and conversation, or without someone approaching to ask if I needed assistance and to thank me for visiting their country. In fact, I never met any Westerner who had been poorly treated by a Turk, Arab, or Persian, and I met plenty who had been treated far better than I. My friends also went to Iran, where they were invited by strangers to come home to dinner or to stay for days, and always told about how Iranians hate Ahmadinejad and love America, and not to listen to the news.

Here is one thing the Muslims excel at: they generally have such horrible governments that it is easy for them to look past the actions of foreign presidents, parliaments, and armies, and to see that people are separate -- or rather that people are all the same.

"I don't care!" cried one Syrian to me on a memorable night, -- "you are American, but you see, we are friends. We are the same. We both have eyes and heart and soul -- and ass. It's our presidents, our governments, our armies that have problem. It is not our business."
Agreed on all points. However, I can't argue with your anecdotal evidence, but if you honestly can't think of one Western visitor that has been treated poorly in the Middle East, then you are not trying hard enough. That being said, I acknowledge that my statement was a blanket statement and I should have been more careful with word choice.

As for America's legalization process for immigrants, oh man, don't even get me started. It's abysmal. :(

[VerseD]

I do think that saying "all forms of radicalization should be studied equally" to be somewhat wrong. I do think all forms should be studied to the best we can possibly accomplish, but not on equal measures. Some threats are more prominent than others. Islamic terrorism has cost more lives and collateral damage in this country than anti-abortionist terrorism in the past decade.

Recall that Islamic extremists are not responsible for the majority of terrorist acts committed against the United States. The FBI has a chronology of terrorist incidents (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05) from 1980 to 2005 (at the bottom of the page), which when categorized and broken down looks like this:


Latino: 42%
Left Wing Extremists: 24%
Jewish Extremists: 7%
Islamic Extremists: 6%
Communists: 5%
Other: 16%


Of course this downgrades the significance of the attack on September 11, which killed many more people than all the other attacks combined; but in the context of King's hearing, which regards domestic terrorism and not international terrorism like Al Qaeda, I think it validates my point.

A 2010 study (http://www.sanford.duke.edu/news/Schanzer_Kurzman_Moosa_Anti-Terror_Lessons.pdf) by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill compiled a list of individuals categorized as Muslim-American terrorism offenders, who had become radicalized in the US between September 11, 2001, and that year. These were individuals who had 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." There were 139, which means that Muslim-Americans are radicalized at a rate of 17 per year, out of a population of 2.4 to 7 million. How terrifying!

It is only fair for me to add that the Investigative Project On Terrorism reviewed Department of Justice statistics (http://www.investigativeproject.org/2659/islamists-dominate-doj-list-of-terror-prosecutions) and found that "more than 80 percent of all convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism since 9/11 involve defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda," but later concede that "the list emphasizes international terror, so domestic extremist groups like the Hutaree militia and eco-terrorists are not included." Most of the groups involved are foreign cells of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, but the Tamil Tigers and Colombia's FARC also make the list, which doesn't seem to be about American terrorism at all.

While looking for these statistics I found more interesting ones from the EU's Europol (http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/EU_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-SAT/Tesat2010.pdf): of the 294 attacks failed, foiled or successfully executed in 2009, only one was carried out by an Islamic group. Of 587 arrested suspects of terrorism, less than twenty percent were identified as Islamists. Twenty percent of these were "home-grown" citizens born in the EU, "which still perceives them as foreigners," and thus they became "more attracted to the idea of becoming 'citizens' of the virtual worldwide Islamic community, removed from territory and national culture." The report also links Islamic attacks to "political developments in countries and areas outside the EU that include Iraq, Afghanistan, the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area, Somalia and Yemen."

The Europol report is also interesting for treating Islamic terrorism alongside other types, for making a general overview of extremism and analyzing trends, and for being altogether and infinitely more useful than our country's hearing, which has so far been a stage for a weeping senator and a dozen disapproving experts.

Agreed on all points. However, I can't argue with your anecdotal evidence, but if you honestly can't think of one Western visitor that has been treated poorly in the Middle East, then you are not trying hard enough. That being said, I acknowledge that my statement was a blanket statement and I should have been more careful with word choice.

We travelers would joke constantly that we were safer in Damascus, capital of the dictator that Bush called a Prince of Darkness, than in any of the largest cities in America. I never heard a story about a Westerner even being harassed -- though I heard a few about Westerners with local girls on their arms being barred from the hotel by puritanical old innkeepers. I know from the rare news dispatch that incidents do happen, but I know from experience that if a foreigner were ever threatened, the whole neighborhood would rise up in defense of their guest. It is a matter of honor. I once told an Iranian about the "security fee" that Americans must pay to visit his country, and he replied, "If you come to Iran, I will guarantee your security with every drop of my blood!"

The hospitality of the Orient is something you have to experience. My description here is an understatement.