Kevin Marshall's America
Cartoonish embarrassment: Congressman Peter T. King
To understand Congressional Committee member Peter T. King‘s “Muslim Radicalization Hearings,” we need to look to the past. Not to the past of the Muslim Community, mind you, but to that of King himself.
In 2004, King wrote a novel called Vale of Tears. In it, the protagonist is a Congressman who is enlisted to help bring down an organization that has already hit several targets and is planning a bigger attack. The protagonist is unashamedly and admittedly based on King himself.
That he wrote this piece of fiction and cast himself in the role of the hero of the story speaks volumes and shows the true motivations behind these hearings. They are not based on any actual concerns rooted in trends or any imminent danger, but rather in the paranoid delusions of a man whose peculiar politics have somehow not prevented him from being re-elected to his position, and whose grasp of reality is dependent solely on his ability to cast himself at the center of a political thriller.
It’s also hypocritical. For years King was a very active and vocal supporter of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), even meeting with IRA officials in Ireland and styling himself as something of a stateside activist for the organization. In a bit of irony, the BBC actually prohibited King for appearing on TV for refusing to condemn the IRA for its bombings and other activities in the United Kingdom. In 2000 he decried George W. Bush as a “tool of anti-Catholic forces” because of a visit Bush made to Bob Jones University, which once gave Irish Protestant figure Ian Paisley an honorary doctorate.
After the September 11th attacks, King had what one could term a change of heart, though it might be more apt to assume it was rooted in shame for what he was supporting. Suddenly his tune changed from an Irish ballad to a patriotic hymn. He condemned Ireland and the IRA for not backing Bush in the War in Iraq and disowned his allegiance to the organization and its cause.
Terrorism abroad were acts of freedom and defiance, but on his doorstep they were exactly what his critics had told him: horrific, violent tragedies that hold no empathy, scope, or political value in civilized society.
Unfortunately, King continued to show that his politics and views are rooted not in any consistent moral basis, but rather in ugliness and paranoia. He went on Sean Hannity’s radio program in February of 2004 and shocked the host with an outrageous claim that eighty to eighty-five percent of mosques in the United States were under the control of Islamic fundamentalists and extremists who were trying to indoctrinate Muslim youth towards terror. In a 2007 interview with Politico, King re-asserted his stance that there “has been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community.” and that there were “too many mosques” in the United States. (note: after seeing the actual video, it’s my opinion the Congressman stumbled on his own words and did not mean what came out. – KM)
Then there is the 2004 novel. In it, he has his main protagonist – “Congressman Cross,” ‘natch – defend his own former allegiance with the IRA:
“With all respect to you, Doctor, if the I.R.A. had ever attacked Americans, I would have disowned them in a second — and I would have waited a long time before I started talking about what was going on in Northern Ireland.”
Like the hearings he has called for, the selective morality and concerns he carries have a fear that is rooted in September 11th, but carry with them concerns and allegations that only work in a fictional landscape and aren’t much more than an attempt to raise the profile and stature of the self-styled protagonist of this story. Even in terms of homegrown terrorism, the real threat tends to come from homegrown groups (for example white supremacist and separatist organizations) that are known and monitored by federal agencies and have struck in the past.
Congressman King’s proposition that the Muslim community as a whole must own and answer for the crimes of terrorists is inherently wrong and decidedly un-American. His logic is confounding: that members of the Muslim community are to be brought forth and condemned for not doing more to speak out against terrorism, which makes about as much sense as dragging your Italian-American friend before a House Sub-Committee and demanding to know why he hasn’t spoken out lately against the Mafia. No person should be brought before or subpoenaed by Congress and asked to answer for what they are doing to stop something that is well beyond their control and not their responsibility.
Safety and security of the country are, naturally, a serious and sensitive issue for many. So too is the safety, security, and rights of individuals to live freely as Americans. King’s faux-apologetic demonization of the Muslim community and continued pursuit of a public witch hunt is an embarrassment and a travesty, and should be universally condemned.
POST-SCRIPTS (10:47am)
- Rev. Alan Rudnick expresses his concerns and gives a mention over on his space.
- A live blog of the hearings from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom Online
- Live video courtesy C-SPAN
Related articles
Share it!
53 Responses to Congressman Peter T. King’s latest work of fiction: the Muslim Radicalization Hearings
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
Holy…
Kevin Marshall talking about something that… matters???
Somebody run quick to Rev. Alan’s blog! I think it’s one of the signs of the Apocolypse!!! ;-)
Everybody look out for flying pigs and snow in July!
– jack
If Congress is going to start investigating religious groups whose members have attacked Americans, that could be bad news for the Catholic Church given the extent of the clergy sexual abuse scandal.
It’s too bad republicans have made the word “racist” and “bigot” as taboo as the n-word, because finding adjectives to describe this man is becoming difficult for me. I mean, I’d like to offer an opinion on his actions, but I don’t want to lose my job as someone who works in journalism.
Kevin, very well put. This man is an idiot, and how New Yorkers keep electing him, is beyond me…
Good thought provoking article. I don’t think I’m informed enough yet, but this does bring up uncomfortable images of McCarthyism (<sic?). However, I'm a little confused about your statement, "Even in terms of homegrown terrorism, the real threat tends to come from homegrown groups (for example white supremacist and separatist organizations) that are known and monitored by federal agencies and have struck in the past." I don't believe that you are naive enough to think there aren't already Muslim extemists in this country, or that there are elements in our society that would like nothing better than to create more for the purpose of spreading terror here on US soil. I'm sure I don't have to cite even the recent examples. Don't Muslim extremists also fall under this category? Shouldn't they also be sought out and monitored? I don't think average American feels as threatened by the aryan nation, homegrown militias (even if they should) as they do radical Muslim suicide bombers. I personally feel we need to work more closely with the Muslim community to stop this, but to say there isn't a threat does a disservice. Please don't interpret this as confrontational. I'm truely trying to get a better understanding.
ps Alot of people thought Hitler was a nut who wouldn't amount to anything too. We have to be engaged and involved in these discussions, not matter how distatseful or painful they may be, in order to exact significant change or influence if we truely want it. To dismiss it is shortsighted. IMO
Sorry so long.
Flurries -My point wasn’t and isn’t that there aren’t any in our country. My point is that homegrown terrorism, which is the false pretense under which King is operating this charade, is far more likely to involve separatists, anti-semites, and anti-government groups. Testimony given today before this hearing repeated that assessment, as does historical precedent and intelligence monitoring.
Tony – I think it’d be awesome if Joe McCarthy started haunting Peter King…but just over the telephone. “Oooooooo say you love America ooooooooo why’d you attend this meeting in college oooooooooo!” *click*
Joe McCarthy called, he wants his gig back.
and for the record..I am a registered republican….
Mike L.-maybe if Priests started blowing UP children….
Rep Keith Ellison (D-Minn) tears up after recalling the prejudice his family has faced and the disgraceful treatment his brother (a fireman who while saving lives during 9/11) received from their own nation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/keith-ellison-tears-up-muslim-hearings_n_833981.html
@Flurries: There are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims, as there are with most people. There are laws and organizations already in place to defend this country from terrorists. This new bill is a disgrace to America, equality, and the memory of the countless Muslim servicemen and women, firefighters, police officers, and ordinary citizens who sacrificed, bled, and died to make America a better place. Muslims are and will forever be just as much a part of America as white christians or any other racial or religious group. An attack on American Muslims is an attack on America. You strike at one of us, you strike at all of us.
Gonna throw in a (possibly) unpopular opinion here…
Maybe the solution isn’t “no, THOSE are the Americans you should REALLY be spying on!”?
Maybe being American means living with the fact there’s gonna be people we disagree with – and just because we disagree with them, doesn’t mean we have a right to spy on them?
To me, “safety percaution against terrorism” involves putting locks on cockpit doors and controlling the sale of ammonia fertilizer.
So… I think racism is wrong. And those Westboro freakjobs who protest soldier’s funerals are monsters. But… I don’t think spying on them is right.
Just a thought.
Joan - My apologies, I don’t follow. Are you saying we shouldn’t spy on groups like Westboro? Because they’re not really a part of this argument or defined as homegrown terror. Can you clarify?
Well, you bring up that:
“[T]he real threat tends to come from homegrown groups (for example white supremacist and separatist organizations) that are known and monitored by federal agencies and have struck in the past…”
And I read Flurries’s comment, and I thought: “It vaugely (though I could be wrong on this point) sounds like KM believes it’s wrong to spy on Muslims but it’s alright to spy on racists and anti-federalists. But I don’t think it’s right to spy on American citizens, period, whether or not I agree with them.”
Joan - Flurrie’s wrong on that point and made an incorrect assumption.
For what it’s worth, I do not think it’s wrong for a country’s intelligence services (who should be left to this sort of thing – why King feels the need to fabricate an issue that’s already been explored by those more in the know than him is beyond me) to spy on and/or monitor potential terrorist elements, whether they be based in Islamic fundamentalism or anti-government separatists and their ilk. To what degree and how they go about it is an issue I won’t get into here.
But that point is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with these hearings, because again, this isn’t about spying at all. It’s about public demonization. If there was a real threat of indoctrination on a massive scale and homegrown al Qaeda elements running rampant, why the Hell would it be coming from a Congressman/novelist/nutjob from Long Island and not from, say, the Director of the CIA or some other source within that community that – again – actually KNOWS things like this?
This is all like your dentist calling you up and saying he thinks you have colon cancer. Based on what?
What about the testimony of Melvin Bledsoe whose son converted to Islam and commited terrorist acts, and Abdirizak Bihi regarding getting no cooperation from mosque leaders regarding the radicalization of his nephew? Granted they weren’t part of an organized group, but did they radicalize in a vacuum? Should this be discounted out of hand bc this King guy is drawing comparisons to McCarthy? I submit that separatists, anti-semites and anti-government groups all describe radical Muslims. I’m NOT saying all Muslims fall into these categories. Again, I’m not saying I agree with everything this King guy is doing. But, he is a representative of the people, and lots of people are scared by this relatively new threat to our society. He is by no means out on a limb by himself.
Flurries – He is no means out on a limb by himself, but he is encouraging paranoia, which is completely different and aside from what we should consider a rational fear.
You said it – “granted, they weren’t part of an organized group.” That’s the whole point of this thing is that they WOULD be part of an organized group, ie a mosque run by an Islamic fundamentalist and/or by extension al Qaeda. In both cases they went abroad; they sought out those activities. They weren’t handed a brochure in Montana and drove a truck into a federal building in Oklahoma.
Again, I know people hate me drawing that parallel, but it is very important to do so in understanding the difference between homegrown terrorism and what we consider the global war on terror. King confusing the two isn’t just bad for society and cultural laisons, but for policy precedent as well.
I can’t speak on the lack of cooperation, only to say that one can often perceive that to be the case when they don’t get the answers they want (or need), especially when it involves family members. Just think of how often we hear about victims’ families who talk about “lack of cooperation” because a suspect wasn’t identified or found.
But what about:
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
That was ratified back in 1791. How does spying on citizens work with Amendment 4 of the Bill of Rights?
Joan – Like I said, whole other can of worms. Ideally they should go through the proper channels, which would involve warrants through a court (such as for wiretapping, etc). The Patriot Act changed or modified a lot of that, but again, that’s a whole separate issue that for the sake of brevity I’m not sure I want to get into.
I’m not advocating spying or singling out anybody. I would rather leave law enforcement and national security to those who have the experience in such matters. I thought we were talking in the context of why these hearings are being held. I’m not saying I agree with King’s overall attitude on the subject or even understand it. I just don’t think it’s so out of the ordinary that some people would want these discussions to be had in a public way. There’s way worse conversations regarding Islam going on everyday in private. Why not bring it into the public view? We are allowed to disagree in this country, right?
Maybe he’ll be made to look like a fool, like McCarthy. Maybe he’s wiser than all of us. He’s chosen this path. He’ll deal with the repurcussions one way or the other. Isn’t THAT up to US?
Flurries – We’re allowed to disagree, of course, which is why these hearings are happening. But they shouldn’t for reasons of decorum.
I almost want to draw the comparison of yelling fire in a crowded theater, but on a far grander and more damaging scale in the long-term. It doesn’t work, though, because what King’s doing is legal. From a moral and ethical standpoint, however, it IS apt; the degree to which King is suggesting this is a problem both in and out of these hearings is damaging to the social fabric and generates unreasonable fear and hatred. It is based on logical fallacy and fantasy.
We had eight years under a Bush Administration that established a pretty aggressive anti-terror policy both domestically and internationally, and they never suggested such a thing and would even steer conversation away from it whenever King would press the issue. That he does it now in 2011 and in addition was given a seat on the Homeland Security Committee in order to do so is patently absurd.
And of course it’s up to us. That’s why I wrote this blog post, it’s why so many others are speaking out, and it’s why pretty much why you hear a low rumble off in the distance. That’s the sound of the heads of thousands of scholars and those in the intelligence community hitting their desks.
But it’s not “something else.”
Monitoring citizens IS the thing – this hearing, all of it – it’s all very creepily anti-American.
If you suggest preventing terrorist attacks by monitoring the populace, try and consider these cases. Who would you monitor? Why is okay to monitor “people like that”?:
Timothy McVeigh, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing
Theodore Kaczynski, 1978 – 1995, Unabomber
Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, 1997, Muslim Empire State Building attack
Eric Robert Rudolph, 1996-1998, Christian Idenity attacks on abortion clinics and gay nightclubs
Buford O. Furrow, Jr., 1999, White Supremist attack on Jewish daycare
Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, 2002, LAX
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 2006, Islamic attack on Chapel Hill
Naveed Afzal Haq, 2006, Seattle Jewish Federation shooting
Scott Roeder, 2009, Anti-abortionist attack
Abdulhakim Mujahaid Muhammad, US ex-military Muslim convert attack in Little Rock
James von Brunn, 2009, White supremist attack on Holocaust museum
Nidal Malik Hasan, 2009, Fort Hood attack
Joseph Andrew Stack III, 2010, anti-IRS attack by plane
Jared Loughter, 2011, Arizona shootings
So we have ample evidence to monitor: white supremists, Muslims, anti-abortionists, Christian, ex-military, guys living alone in the woods, people who don’t like the IRS…
You can use that list to justify spying on just about anyone.
In my book, none of it’s okay. No spying on US citizens, period.
Joan - No disrespect intended, it IS something else and a different (and more complicated) issue. We’re talking about the hearings being put forth by Senator King, and you’re talking about how our Intelligence community as a whole operates. Point taken, but it’s still a different point and issue at hand.
Yikes, Joan… I cover that list pretty well.
I was a member of the Muslim Students Association in college (also Young Socialists, Communists, and Hindu Students Association).
I’m a Christian.
I’m not terribly fond of the federal government.
I go shooting with US military members (and scheduled to go again two weeks from now).
Not too cool with how taxes are handled in this country.
I’m a mathematician…
Wow. I better be afraid, and not share my opinion. Because d#ckheads like King will do hearings…
And say I should be watched…
And with secret evidence laws, if I get picked up, who knows if it was because I was an actual threat, or just because I said something the government didn’t like…
jack
J. Nash – You are so going to be the bad guy in his next novel.
Yeah, but what’s cool is I’m real – my name just isn’t John Nash (quite obviously.) ;-)
J. Nash – That’s okay, his name isn’t Congressman Cross either.
Just make sure you demand royalties.
But I’m actually being very serious, Kevin, ultimately.
I do participate in worker’s rights and unions. I do go around talking about things – and having opinions – that someone like me shouldn’t have.
Barring some… overt physical differences… as well as a propensity for violence (which I don’t have), I share a significant overlap with a good number of people on that list. If I said something loud enough, they could pick me up, and wave around my views and postings as if that alone made a terrorist. And with secret evidence, that’s all they’d have to do.
So should my opinion be silenced? Should I be afraid?
Yeah this guys a nut, and yeah they’ve been spying on everyone since 911… maybe before.
Thanks for the feedback Kevin. The last 2 sentences were funny. It’s nice to actually have an intelligent correspondace without getting into name calling and denigration. Rare. I respect your views on the topic even if I’m not sure I totally understand or agree. (did I just open myself up to insult? hopefully not. half kidding) I’m going to be paying closer attention and hopefully become more educated on the subject. I think I’ll have to show up to a blogger meet up sometime when you’re there. Could be some interesting conversations. I try to read your blog evryday. I’ve been told all I know how to talk about is sports. And all those opinions are wrong too. boo hoo I need to broaden my conversational horizons.
@Flurries: Often, sadly enough, these conversations in public lead to people encouraging domestic terrorism in an entirely different way. Remember when the conservatives spread all the lies and paranoia about the “mosque at ground zero” that was neither a mosque nor at ground zero? There were bomb threats ALL OVER THE COUNTRY against Muslims. That is TRUE domestic terrorism. Yet how many conservatives stopped calling the building a “mosque at ground zero” even when it was exposed as a factual inaccuracy? How many stopped suggesting that it was a sinister project of Islamic Extremists? Their comments and their rhetoric directly lead to lives being threatened, and in the case of the cabbie who was stabbed in NY, attacked. While these politicians weren’t directly responsible for these acts of domestic terrorism, they never apologized for the perpetrators. They never behaved in the manner that they are expecting Muslims to behave now. The fact that they can’t adhere to the principles they are trying to enforce shows that they are not fit to supervise such a panel, even in the event that one should be warranted. Muslims are Americans. Treating all of them as a danger is encouraging terrorism against them. And that is domestic terrorism.
It doesn’t at all surprise me that such a wingnut would keep getting elected there. I lived my entire life on Long Island until I came to college four years ago, and the racism is really rampant and I’d say more in your face than I’ve experienced in this area. There’s a lot of hate for “foreigners” (*cough* not white or black people) all around, especially if they’re Hispanic. Then on top of that you’ve got really stark segregation.
Well put Steve. I can’t really disagree with anything you said. It is grotesque to have innocent Muslims targeted, but let’s not forget that there are also innocent Americans being targeted. Neither is more wrong or right. My next question I guess is for another day, but how do we get to a point where the paranoia about all American Muslims being terrorists is not a prevailing view amongst other Americans? I personally would like to see the Muslim American community become more visible and vocal in their oppostion to radicalism and love for America. I’m not saying they have to or even should. I just think it would in their best interests to be more involved in this debate.
@31:
I’d like to see more interfaith dialog in general. We have more in common than we think we do, honestly, and face a lot of the same problems.
Media images haunt all religions – and those who choose no religion. We get our conceptions of each other from yellow corporate journalists, rather than meeting and talking to one another.
(I vote the Muslims and Hindus have to bring the food… I went to MSA bake sales every Friday… oh, yes, they totally won me over with sneaky samosa goodness… ;-) )
jack
Also…
Just in case someone was sleeping during junior high history class:
Yellow Journalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Yellow journalism or the yellow press is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension “Yellow Journalism” is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.
Campbell (2001) defines Yellow Press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers about 1900 as they battled for circulation.
[Nowadays I suppose we could just say “journalism” and be done with it…]
I just popped by to see if I was missing an opportunity to make cheeky snide comments or construct elaborate well-planned arguments, and I saw this on KM’s Facebook feed:
“‘I hope every local mosque is wired and infiltrated by the FBI.’ – from a comment I didn’t allow on the TU blog. Far from the worst of it”
Okay, totally KM’s blog, not mine.
But here’s a thought:
A lot of racists (and other types like that) that I’ve met are partially that way because they have the perception their opinions are being stifled.
In my experience studying… well, I’m not going to diginify the list above and call them “terrorists.” They were lone nutjobs, plain and simple. (If you call every person who commits a crime that’s intended to inspire fear a “terrorist,” you’d have to include people like Dennis Rader, the BTK sex killer. Strongly anti-woman, without a doubt, and intended to inspire fear in women. Not a terrorist, though).
But in my experience studying these people, it’s partially the fact that they felt their opinions were being stifled, and that they felt alone and unheard that lead to their crimes.
You can change people’s opinions, sometimes just by listening respectfully to them.
Example:
I know two people. One’s a staunch, Fox-watching, born-again-Christian Republican who hates the “liberal media” and watched Rush Limbaugh before it was “cool.”
The other’s a union member, sometimes Catholic, and a massive Obama supporter.
(Interestingly, perhaps, neither one of these people have work right now…)
Anyways, we’re all friends, and we all went out for coffee. Eventually the conversation turned to the union-breaking in Wisconsin.
Of course, the Fox-watcher immediately starting going off about how it was important to break the unions because they were out of control.
But because my Obama-supporting friend was there, he explained why someone might want a union to protect them, and all the things a union does.
The union-breaking seemed a little different to the Fox-watcher, once he understood why someone he knew personally and cared about might want to protect unions. (And neat thing: union guy even admitted that sometimes unions get out of control. Which is also true. But taking away teacher’s pensions isn’t the answer to that.)
So… maybe letting in some of those “terrible” comments might not be a bad idea.
So, not my blog. But that would be my suggestion.
– Joan
Joan – In the past I have allowed certain types of those comments through for the very reasons you cited, and also to show that this sort of thing does exist.
I have to draw a line, though, when that comment seeks to merely incite and/or wound. There were other statements in that same comment that I won’t repeat here. To have allowed that would have hurt some very good people I know in a very real way, and I cannot and will not allow that under the guise of debate and discussion, particularly when it’s intended to stoke everything but.
I know some people want to just inspire fear or hate.
But a lot of those people are genuinely ill – they might not want to hear that, but they are.
And when people edit their comments, or make snide remarks at them, they have the perception that the world is full of spectors and shadows that are against them that they just can’t quite grasp.
Think of Timothy McVeigh. He was a Bronze-star winning soldier. But he developed the fear and perception that people didn’t care about him or his service to the country. One of the final straws that made him crack was when he was terribly in debt due to gambling, and the US government sent him a letter saying that he was overpaid $1,000, and he’d have to pay it back. (And on my research on PTSD-driven psychosis, I have found that gambling addiction is a particularly bad problem. Some psychotics suspect that the flashing lights are sending them messages – I’m not kidding, and it’s not even a little bit funny. These guys can get very sick living alone after the trauma of war.)
But he started identifying with other oppressed people, and other people who had a lot of trouble with the government.
And because he felt laughed at and alienated by the general population, he felt the only way he could make his message heard was through violence.
I’m not sure what the solution is. But telling them just to shut up and ignoring them is what causes that list I posted.
Joan
The goverment doesn’t syp on people, “they” got got a private company for that, That keeps the pesky constitution out of the way
LOLOLOL…..in other words, those that do not conform to the politically correct speech codes will not be allowed to contribute. Perhaps if you had two friends who were reduced to molecules on 9/11/01, and you took the time to research radical Islam both at home and abroad, your outlook would be very different.
Have any of you people ever been to an Islamic nation, or visited other nations that are plagued with Islamic terrorism on a constant basis? You can attempt to transfer your fear by ignoring it and establish a belief system that you more knowledgeable or morally superior to those who point out the facts. You may want to investigate how well that tactic worked out for various nation states in the 20th century when faced with Stalinism, Facism, Maoism, and other ideologies similar to radical Islam.
No, Phana24JG, just you won’t be when you refer to all of Islam as a “primitive cult” amongst other things.
It’s not political correctness, it’s the complete lack of decency, respect, civility, and common sense that you displayed with your first attempt at commenting.
Stay classy, though, and Laugh Out Laugh Out Laugh Out Loud to you as well.
Phana, I lived in Europe from 2005-2010. I’ve never lived in a Muslim nation. The only connection that I have to 9/11 was a college friend who was of Palestian descent, who lost an uncle in the Twin Towers and an aunt to an Israeli “rubber” bullet in the same year.
I know violent Muslims commit crimes. I also know that violent ex-military, and violent Christians also commit crimes.
What facts that you are referring to? I’m not being sarcastic; I know about 9/11, but I also know about Oklahoma City and a variety of other events. If you’re referring to a book or a website, please feel free to reference it here.
LOL,
You know what two things are not alike? Maoism and Radical Islam. Wow, we’ve really got some geniuses around here.
LOLOL?
Actually, Maoism and Pan-Arabism have quite a bit in common. Both are socialist in nature, both support the unification of large, natural geographic areas of the world, bringing together people of widely different cultures, both espouse glorification of the native, non-foreign cultures of that region.
Now, why do I mention Pan-Arabism and not “radical Islam” and/or “Islamofascism”?
Because unlike “Islamofascism,” Pan-Arabism is a real system of political and economic philosophies.
“Islamofascism,” I’m sorry, I don’t think it’s real. I think “Islamofascism” is like “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a nonsense mish-mash of half-truths and outright lies that are used to inspire fear against a people for the purposes of war.
And “radical Islam” is a nonsense term. What does that mean? Wahhabism? Nationalism? People keep using this term, and everyone seems to get upset over it, but nobody’s defined it yet. That says to me it’s jingoistic nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism . (Jingoism? Yellow journalism? Oh, yes, I paid attention in 7th grade American history class! Mr. Britian would be proud. ;-))
—
Now, I’d also like to point out that although supposedly a line is drawn here “when that comment seeks to merely incite and/or wound,” and somehow…
Cihan’s comment mocking someone who lost loved ones in 9/11 got through.
Not cool, in jack’s opinion.
Phana knows – really knows at a level most people here don’t – that people do die in terrorist attacks.
Personally I think ignoring that is “ignorant.”
Maybe Phana does believe that Islam is a “primitive cult.” Maybe part of that is because he doesn’t know that during long periods of European backwardness, the Muslims preserved art, architecture, science, philosophy, and technology. In fact, without books from the Muslim world, we would have never lead to the period of time in European history known as the “Enlightenment.” And it’s the philosophies of the Enlightenment that lead to… the founding of the good ol’ US of A.
But it’s not cool to make fun of Phana’s pain at losing his loved ones. He really knows – fundementally knows – that terrorism and war really do kill people. And that it’s terrible.
By ignoring that people he knew died at the hands of Muslims, we seem to be ignoring that reality he knows is there.
And I think – realistically – that the culture that kept books, science, mathematics and many philosophies of the ancient Greeks alive is sick and dying in the Muslim world.
We might want to try discussing what’s going on, rather than focusing on jingoistic terms and ignoring reality.
Jack – Agreed on all points, except:
I have to take great umbrage with that assertion.
Nobody’s making fun of his pain, but rather his racism and ignorance, which is fair game once he not only puts it out there but then insists on pressing the issue.
Plenty of people lost loved ones, friends, and family in 9/11 and don’t go around spewing what he spews. He didn’t mention anything about losing loved ones until he got called out for the rejected comment (which included no reference to it). As such, we don’t even know if this guy’s telling the truth about that or just using it as a convenient excuse for racism (it is the internet, after all).
However, let’s take him at his word: so he can’t be mocked for spewing hate and ignorance because of those circumstances?
No, that’s BS. Sorry. You don’t get to drop that as a get out of jail free card.
Also, food for thought: if someone came on here and dropped the n-word then in a follow-up comment said that their mother was robbed and killed by a black guy, would they not be subject to being called out on their racism by Cihan or anyone else because of their pain?
In my book?
Nobody doesn’t get “called out” in my book. Hypocrites piss me off.
Although, truthfully… I tend to be polite to the owner of the blog and don’t really go into what I think of them…
jack
Since I threw it out there – an example:
“45.Also, food for thought: if someone came on here and dropped the n-word then in a follow-up comment said that their mother was robbed and killed by a black guy, would they not be subject to being called out on their racism by Cihan or anyone else because of their pain?”
The “n-word” is just a word, Kevin. Using it or not using it does not make you more or less a racist.
Saw a couple of posts around here suddenly on the horrors of white supremecy, and why we have to watch “them.”
Nobody seems to give a sh-t, however, that we have a fundementally racist and classist system in this country.
Pretty image of a black president? To me it’s like the choice of using or not using the n-word – has nothing to do with racism or the problems of racism and classism in this country.
Do you know what do?
How about the institutionalized racism of 1 out of 6 blacks in our country spend time in jail?
How about if you kill a white man, you’re far more likely to be put to death for that crime than if you kill a black man?
How about Katrina?
I think blacks in America have a whole heck of a lot more to fear from these institutionalized policies than whether or not some poor white is confused about who or what screwed him. Or what word he uses.
Just a thought,
jack
“And when people edit their comments, or make snide remarks at them, they have the perception that the world is full of spectors and shadows that are against them that they just can’t quite grasp.” Joan said think of Timothy McVeigh well i did and here you go…http://www.patriotledger.com/homepage/breaking/x1777801225/Author-links-man-arrested-in-Quincy-to-the-subject-of-her-book-on-Oklahoma-City-bomb-ing#axzz1GOh0mypj.
Your right people can’t always grasp what they are looking for.
J. Nash: to paraphrase Kanye West: “Why do you hate white people?”
Hypocrites piss me off too, as do extremists on both the left and the right. They start out with a point or points worth pondering, then have to go overboard and dramatic. All people of all races and all religions have a moral obligation to curb the excesses of the extremis element in their particular group by vociferously condemning them. That’s my opinion.
K. Judge, thank you for the article. It brings up many interesting points and questions about unknown factors related to Timothy McVeigh’s case
Would I discount outright that Timothy McVeigh had connections to Muslim terrorists? No. I wouldn’t say he did, either. We simply don’t know. It’s one of the reasons that I’m against the death penalty. We could learn more if Timothy McVeigh was still alive.
Timothy McVeigh’s case does highlight how untruths and lies can keep people sick.
For example, he fought in the First Gulf War. We now know that a lot of the things the government claimed – for example, that they were using “computerized” targeting systems to send those bombs down chimmneys, when it’s now fairly common knowledge that humans carrying laser sights show those missles where to go – about the First Gulf War were untrue. McVeigh knew the truth about how we conduct war and how over-reaching and abusive the government could be.
Not finding people to listen to him, and being treated as though these very real facts were fiction may have fed his non-bizarre paranoid fixations, such as his belief that the government had implanted a chip in him to keep an eye on him.
But I don’t discount things I can’t know outright – like the article you posted. Was he connected to Muslim extremists? I don’t think so, but I wouldn’t say it’s impossible.
Thanks for the article,
Joan
The “chip in the butt” thing pisses me off…
Too many people go “Hahaha, McVeigh thought he had a chip in his butt!”
I say, “Yeah, and the government damaged him so badly that he believed he had a chip in his butt.”
It’s like Loughter: “Hahaha, he thought he was being watched…”
Yeah, and the media and government screaming constantly “we can watch you…” Yep, that doesn’t feed those kinds of thoughts irresponsibly.
If someone gets hurt, isolated or traumatized, those thoughts happened. H-ll, they happened to Doestoevsky, the famous Russian author. He writes extensively about the experience in “Notes from Underground.” And laughing at people for having those natural thoughts worsens the situation horribly.
This hopefully hits you. (It’s 100% Factual, and I’m personally involved with this story).
The news recently is revolving around “News of the World” corrupt wiretapping into private citizens phones. My story is on a politician that wiretapped Me, and shut down city council meetings for the soul reason that I was going to be present, and is also exclusively interviewed by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News.
The Owner of Fox News has subsidiaries involved in wiretapping governmental officials and PRIVATE Citizens. Simultaneously there have been government officials who have exclusively only been consulted by, or interviewed by Fox News. A baren fixture of this is my representative (Not by choice) Rep. Peter King (Monarchist,…I mean Republican).
This politician (Not a leader) Mr. King, on the topic of wiretapping, was recently quoted saying: “It’s a Disgrace, it’s wrong to hack into anyone’s phone. but especially at a time of the worst national disaster in the history of our country.”
But the domino didn’t start with Rupert Murdoch’s other foreign presses. . There is a symbiosis of corruption between Fox News and Peter King (Who happens to be the Chairman of The Dept. of Homeland Security). If you want to see what Rep. King’s office wiretapping of my phones, and other tyrannical suppressive actions he’s caused, look down this rabbit’s hole (By The way, Rep. King denotes that wiretapping is a disgrace affiliated with national disasters, but when I candidly invoke a national disaster for my government to observe gun control regulation, I’m immediately wiretapped.) : http://gabbigiffords.blogspot.com/
The letter from the officer who was present at the ilegal search and seizure is completely authentic.
Peter T King’s claim that the IRA have never attacked Americans is completely untrue. A number of US citizens have been killed or injured in IRA terrorist bombings in Europe and US business interests have been severely damaged.
King is being disingenuous and deliberately dishonest when he makes that claim.