Legitimate Inquiry or McCathyesque Witch-hunt? Congressional hearings on American Muslims.

@talk72000,

But who decides who is guilty of the actions you've described?

@Finn dAbuzz,

GWB, unfortuantely he went against the Muslims and not the Jews who infested his war cabinet: Wolfowitz, Feith, Frum, Perle, etc. But Osama did GWB great favors when his ratings were down he issued threats and GWB's ratings bounced back. Who knows where all this leads to? The bin Ladens financed GWB's business ventures.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Finn wrote:

But who decides who is guilty of the actions you've described?

talk72000 wrote:

GWB

OK - Now I can agree with you. Smile

Of course the rest of your nonsense about an infestation of Jews and bin Laden helping Bush is just that.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I think you need to realize the reality of today's political climate. There is no way the inquiry idea would not turn into some kind of witch hunt. If those leaders have that information and want to share, there is already avenues in which to do so, more than likely have already done so.

I literally dread the next two years as it seems we already getting a preview of the next congress.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Perhaps, but does that mean the investigation (which will have participation by more representatives than King alone) perforce will be a sham?

Yes, pretty much. What is Congress going to uncover in open hearings that the FBI cannot? Will Homeland Security reveal all their findings concerning "radical Islam" in public? Would that be beneficial? You know that Congress will invite highly opinionated "experts" who work in think tanks and ignore any evidence that doesn't support their worldviews. The chance of a nuanced view of a complicated issue emerging is zero. What we will get is a cartoon representation of devil Islam and angle Islam with both sides listening to the voices they want to hear and ignoring anything that challenges their preconceptions. Any Congressman who really wanted to understand the issue would be receiving private briefings instead of staging a dog and pony show for the press.

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

I think you need to realize the reality of today's political climate. There is no way the inquiry idea would not turn into some kind of witch hunt. If those leaders have that information and want to share, there is already avenues in which to do so, more than likely have already done so.

I literally dread the next two years as it seems we already getting a preview of the next congress.

I guess we'll see when he holds the hearings because he's not waiting for us to vote on them. They may be useless but I don't think they will be a witch-hunt.

I experienced a great dread when the Democrats took control of Congress and even more when Obama entered the White House. You probably would have told me not to worry and so I will return the assumed favor: Don't worry.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Perhaps, but does that mean the investigation (which will have participation by more representatives than King alone) perforce will be a sham?

Yes, pretty much. What is Congress going to uncover in open hearings that the FBI cannot? Will Homeland Security reveal all their findings concerning "radical Islam" in public? Would that be beneficial? You know that Congress will invite highly opinionated "experts" who work in think tanks and ignore any evidence that doesn't support their worldviews. The chance of a nuanced view of a complicated issue emerging is zero. What we will get is a cartoon representation of devil Islam and angle Islam with both sides listening to the voices they want to hear and ignoring anything that challenges their preconceptions. Any Congressman who really wanted to understand the issue would be receiving private briefings instead of staging a dog and pony show for the press.

I'm not as pessimistic.

A benefit of the hearings may be that the country learns something that the congressmen already know.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

My dread is I know what the next two years is going to consist of, investigations and useless partisan biased hearings. I"ll worry, thank you.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A benefit of the hearings may be that the country learns something that the congressmen already know.

Wouldn't we just go to Wikileaks for that? I doubt we would hear anything that wasn't pre-approved by one Congressman or another if Congress was running the show.

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

My dread is I know what the next two years is going to consist of, investigations and useless partisan biased hearings. I"ll worry, thank you.

Unlike the Waxman led investigations and useless Democrat biased hearings?

I'm afraid I can't say I hope you have nothing to worry about.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A benefit of the hearings may be that the country learns something that the congressmen already know.

Wouldn't we just go to Wikileaks for that? I doubt we would hear anything that wasn't pre-approved by one Congressman or another if Congress was running the show.

Congress can decide who testifies but, realistically, they can't control the actual testimony given.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

The Oklahoma City bombing was, until September 11th, 2001, the most lethal terrorist attack in U.S. history. As for McVeigh, and your claim about him, i refer you to this article at Ethics-Daily-dot-com. There can be no doubt about Eric Rudolph.

Can you tell me what act of terror by an American Muslim is in the same league with McVeigh and Rudolph? Can you justify singling out Muslims? What about the JDL, do you think Jewish extremists should be investigated?

This is a valid response to the question of this thread, because it points out the imbalanced particularism implicit in this call for a congressional investigation.

1 Reply

This all sounds sort of HUAC-y to me.
Not that I'm saying we should be complacent, but there is a department in place for the watchers:
interesting read here - http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/?hpid=artslot

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

This all sounds sort of HUAC-y to me

Word

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

This all sounds sort of HUAC-y to me.
Not that I'm saying we should be complacent, but there is a department in place for the watchers:
interesting read here - http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/?hpid=artslot

It could be "HUAC-y" and will be if the purpose is to identify radicalized Muslim-Americans.

The ostensible reason is to determine the causes of Muslim-American radicalization, and identfy steps that can be taken to counter them.

Hearings or not, it's a big problem.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The Oklahoma City bombing was, until September 11th, 2001, the most lethal terrorist attack in U.S. history. As for McVeigh, and your claim about him, i refer you to this article at Ethics-Daily-dot-com. There can be no doubt about Eric Rudolph.

Can you tell me what act of terror by an American Muslim is in the same league with McVeigh and Rudolph? Can you justify singling out Muslims? What about the JDL, do you think Jewish extremists should be investigated?

This is a valid response to the question of this thread, because it points out the imbalanced particularism implicit in this call for a congressional investigation.

There can be no doubt about Rudolph and none was offered.

Your link doesn't pursuade me that McVeigh was motivated far more by politics than religion, but we can continue in that vein if you'd like. For the purposes of this thread though, I don't think it really matters.

Based on frequency severity and currency, radical Muslim attacks present a much greater threat to America than radical Christian or Jewish attacks.

It is widely accepted that the strategy of al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups is now focused on the utilization of home grown muslim radicals. Four of the last five plans of attack (1 successful, 2, unsuccessful, 2 foiled) in this country were to be carried out by Muslim-Americans. The story that started this thread relates to the most recent planned Islamist attack, and initial reports are that all 12 suspects are British nationals., British nationals have been implicated in prior planned attacks in the UK both successful and foiled.

Rudolph's four attacks resulted in 2 deaths and 150 injuries. Major Nidal Malik Hasan was responsible for killing 13 and wounding 30 in a single attack. I think it's safe to say Rudolph and Hasan are in the same league. If jihadi terrorism in America continues, it won't be long before there are Muslim-American attacks that are comparable in scope to McVeighs.

I'm all in favor of expanding the hearings to include all religious radicalization.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Sometimes the value of congressional hearings is the attention they focus on an issue.

Most times it's to divert attention away from the criminal actions of US politicians and the US military.

Who's this McCathy person?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Maybe you just had a brain fart, or maybe not, but my argument was not that McVeigh was motivated more by politics than religion.

Based on the frequency, severity and currency of attacks? You can only make this look dire by excluding McVeigh, and by dragging in an account of activity in the UK. Last time i checked, the national security of the United Kingdom is not a concern of the United States Congress. So far, all we have is your ipse dixit that there is a serious threat, and your ipse dixit (or that of the FBI, which is about as reliable) on attacks that have been foiled. Personally, although people like McVeigh and Rudolph appal me, i don't think right-wing, christian lunatics are a serious threat. Nor do i think right-wing, Muslim lunatics are a serious threat either.

As Osso pointed out, this is like HUAC--i call it a witch hunt.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Since I feel not enough was done to uncover the distortions and misleading statements made by the former administration and the Waxman hearings barely got a mention, I doubt there will be a legitimate comparison in the next two years. Consider the subject matter of the Waxman hearing verses coming attractions. The former is about misleading statements and distortions in order to justify a war where people died and lives were at stake. Where else could such inquiries take place but in congress? Compare that to talk of leading investigations into Obama's birth certificate and the like. Kind of like the blue dress sort of thing.

But this inquiry into alleged terrorist or "radical Muslims (the name says it all) , will be nothing but a witch hunt conducted by folks who have a biased view and will seek like minded witnesses and evidence to back it up which will have the effect of stirring up a lot of controversy needlessly since we have avenues set up to handle our nations security which would include following leads into plots and terrorist. I only hope the inquiry turns out to be as little as the Waxman hearings with as little mention about it in the media.

1 Reply

Witch-hunt?

No, it's a Radical-Muslim hunt.

2 Replies

Legitimate Inquiry or McCathyesque Witch-hunt? Congressional hearings on American Muslims.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know