Congressman Peter King- leading the crusade, three decades too late.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, The Daily Mail reports today that it has cost three trillion dollars since that terrible day to “keep Americans safe”. Not only the financial cost is involved of course; there is also the huge loss of military and civilian life and also the undeniable curtailment of civil liberties not only in the US but throughout the world.

Congressman Peter King, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, believes it has been worth it:

‘Actions like the Patriot Act, inspections at the airports, port security – all of that is certainly better than people being burned to death or having to throw themselves out of 106-story buildings,’

Responding to criticism of overly harsh security checks at U.S. airports, Mr King said: ‘If I have the choice between taking off my shoes and having the risk of the plane blowing up, I’d rather take off my shoes.’

Indeed.

But Congressman King’s reaction to the 9/11 and the ensuing changed security situation in the US has led to other more controversial opinions being expressed:

“no American Muslim leaders are cooperating in the war on terror,”

80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists…. I’ll stand by that number of 85 percent. This is an enemy living amongst us.”

“We have unfortunately, we have a, uh, too many mosques in this country, too many people that are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully. I think there’s been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community. There’s a real threat here in this country.”

No messing there, “Muslims=Terror” quite obviously and Peter is out to stop them and their apologists, even if it takes McCarthyite style witchhunts to achieve his goal:

“If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the al Qaeda for it”.

Hang on a moment… 

“If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it”.

 Ah, that must have been an earlier version of Peter King, the “pre present-day scourge of international terrorism” model:

“the British government is a murder machine”

IRA “the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland”

 “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,” 

In the same way as he contextualised and justified the terror of the IRA, his exact words can be altered ever so slightly to justify the terror of al-Qaeda and the “inevitable” results of the supposed “radicalisation” of the Muslim “community” in the US and elsewhere-

The American government is also a murder machine?

 The brave men and women of Iraq carrying forward the struggle against American imperialism by blowing up themselves and their fellow Iraqis?

Given King’s earlier logic, both statements can certainly make sense and are accepted as fact  in much of the Arab and wider Muslim world.

It doesn’t justify the massacre of the innocents of 9/11 though does it?

The sectarian slaughter happening on the streets of Baghdad on a daily basis? 

The killing of civilians by terror groups is surely more than “regrettable”?

What is most revealing though is King’s justification of his contradictory stand:

“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.”

 Ah right. No ” loyalty” to those Irishmen of whatever national identity or religious background targetted by the provos then? Apparently not.

The IRA were not only Irish, catholic and white (conveniently possessing the same demographic as much of Mr King’s electorate), but also were considerate enough to kept their murdering away from the US.

 Why can’t those damned Muslims play by the same rules?

  • keano10

    O’Neill,

    Total hogwash. To even attempt to equate the conflict in Ireland with Al-Qaeda is ludicrous. The complexities of hundreds of years of rebellion and conflict on this island with all of its many dynamics, has virtually nothing in common with the worldwide campaign of terror waged by Al-Qaeda in the name of Islamic Fundamentalism.

    Peter King is entitled to say whatever he wants because the differences are virtually unquantifiable.

    Poor stuff…

  • lamhdearg

    King is 67, should not be too long.

  • keano10

    “The complexities of hundreds of years of rebellion and conflict between Christianity and Islam with all of its many dynamics…”

    The Crusades, Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya… need I go on?

  • Spud

    I doubt if the 9/11 attacks were planned as some sort of old score to settle from the crusades. The 9/11 attacks had probably more to do with Americas close relationship with Israel than an attack on christanity.

  • keano10

    Oneill

    Firstly – the “quote” which you have attributed to me is not what i said. You have chosen to add into that quote wording relating to the conflict between Christianity and Islam which I never said. (or even alluded to).

    By all means feel free to widen your initial post if you wish but it is patently bad practice to attribute directly a “quote” which I never made.

  • keano10

    It should have been obvious what I was doing- you and King imply a justification for the IRA’s terror which you and him say doesn’t exist for Islamic fundamentalists.

    I have merely switched round the words and proven that there is.

    And just to confirm, I don’t believe either justification is enough to write off innocents murdered… no matter the colour or religion of the perpetrator

  • Jimmy Sands

    King is entirely consistent in that puts Americans first. He defends their right both to support terrorism abroad and to be protected from its effects at home.

  • keano10

    Oneill,

    Hang on a minute here. You are well out of order. I am going to complain about this. You directly changed my words and then proceeded to attribute your revised version of it.

    Not only that – where in my post do i mention or justify anything about what you call the “IRA’s terror”? Absolutely nowhere. I merely referred to the diverse complexities of the conflict on this island over many centurues. Nothing else.

    Im afraid that anyone who changes anothers words and fabricates what they said, just reveals the extent of their own narrow- minded point of view.

  • lamhdearg

    jimmy,
    as long as it’s his type of terrorism, i will assume he would not defend americans who supported the uvf, and we know he’s not to keen on those that agree with the islamist’s.

  • Jimmy Sands

    Sorry, I meant white Americans obviously.

  • Jimmy Sands

    “i will assume he would not defend americans who supported the uvf”

    If there were enough of them in his constituency why would you assume that?

  • Hang on a minute here. You are well out of order. I am going to complain about this. You directly changed my words and then proceeded to attribute your revised version of it.

    Please do so- everything is up there in black and white and I believe 95% of those reading will understand the device used.

    If Mick does agree with you after your complaint, then he can withdraw the post.

  • lamhdearg

    @jimmy
    Touche.

  • keano10

    “the device used”?

    Stating that I had justified what you called the “IRA’s terror” when I said no such thing?

    You can call that a “device” O’Neill and I’ll just call it lying.

  • Stating that I had justified what you called the “IRA’s terror” when I said no such thing?

    Keano10

    Fine, I’m happy to admit I got it wrong, you have not justified the IRA’s terror (or however else you wish to describe it).

  • andnowwhat

    I’ll leave my comment on the comparison to Stewart Lee

  • michael-mcivor

    Congressman Peter King supports the peace crusade in
    Ireland and the techniques that were used to get us all to this way of life-

  • lamhdearg

    Keano. would you not agree that both Al-Qeada and the ira claimed to be fighting imperialism on behalf of an oppressed people, and in that they have something in common.

  • lamhdearg

    would you not agree,
    would you agree,
    you would agree would you not,
    one of those anyway.

  • Jimmy Sands

    Another reflection on the comparison here

  • keano10

    Thank you O’Neill.

    Lamh Dearg,

    Good try, but no I would’nt 🙂

  • Alias

    “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.”

    Ah right. No “ loyalty” to those Irishmen of whatever national identity or religious background targetted by the provos then? Apparently not.

    King, as an American, is loyal to America. That is an expression of the nation’s fidelity to its state and the right of national self-determination, so he is consistent to extend that right to be free from external interference by foreign governments to other nations that he sees as asserting it.

    It would be inconsistent to extend it to Irishmen who are not loyal to the Irish state, such as those who are loyal to the United Kingdom, and who consequently deny the right of national self-determination to the Irish nation by denying its right to a sovereign state. Such Irishmen would be British nationalists who are loyal the UK.

    The interesting aspect of his support for PIRA is that PIRA never accepted the legitimacy of the Irish nation’s right of national self-determination, believing instead that a small group of that nations’ member had the right to usurp the right to the collective to choose its own government and order its own affairs according to the majority will, so it is his own support that was “misinformed” in that regard.

    The US never supported the legitimacy of Ireland’s claim to Northern ireland, always siding with the British claim to it. Since the Irish state no longer makes a competing claim to British territory and neither do PIRA, King is finally in tune with US and British policy.

    Islam extremists do not recognise the legitimacy of sovereign states or nations so the problem there is that such fundamentalists can never be loyal to their host nation and therefore present a threat to nation security. Islam makes it a religious duty for Muslims to seize land from non-Muslims; and since land is a tad essential to a state, there can never be a non-Islam state that is regarded by such fundamentalists as not being offensive to their religion. In that regard, King is spot on.

  • lamhdearg

    Jimmy
    @ 2:55 in your link the ira adopt the uff’s clenched (Lamh dearg)fist.

  • lamhdearg

    Alias
    I do not see the word seize in the link,

  • lamhdearg

    Keano, “no i would’nt”, what bit that they both claim it, or that it is not common between them.

  • lamhdearg

    what bit, that they both claim it. sorry

  • Barnshee

    A turd of the first order– aided and abetted the murder of Protestants in N Ireland -so a few arabs shoved it up the USA– well as one might say

    “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against Americans and Israels imperialism in the streets of” — well add in what you want

  • Jimmy Sands

    “It would be inconsistent to extend it to Irishmen who are not loyal to the Irish state,”

    Yet somehow he managed

  • King, as an American, is loyal to America.

    Undoubtedly. But I suspect his first loyalty is himself, especially his continuing re-election. That’s the way it is; not a comment on his integrity – no different from most elected representatives.

  • BluesJazz
  • Brian

    Al Queda killed as many civilians in Iraq on a weekly basis at the height of 2006 as the Provos did in their whole campaign

    Hardly worth comparing the two organizations. Different backgrounds, different beliefs, different tactics, etc.

    This was an easy blog post to write…hardly insightful or creative. You can do better.

  • Turgon

    oneill,
    A nice article thank you. I have noted an interesting development in some of our commentators. When someone posts a thread they do not like they sometimes now say that the blogger “could do better” or words to that effect. A sort of inverted man playing. Unfortuantely in terms of trying to gainsay the thrust of your article it seems that they can do no better.

  • Turgon,

    Thanks.

    When someone posts a thread they do not like they sometimes now say that the blogger “could do better” or words to that effect

    Yes, it’s a strange one. Since I post on here once in a blue moon how can they judge whether I “could do better” or not?!

  • Neil

    You work from the assumption that it’s self-evident that all Muslim/IRA/whatever terrorism is not justified, but I’d suggest it depends on your point of view.

    If you were a Muslim civilian (or maybe an Iraqi one, say the son of that shopkeeper murdered by the British army) who’s lost a son/father (as millions have in that neck of the woods over the past few years) you might consider attacks justified. You might want to participate in one.

    If you were in the British army in Dublin on the day of the Easter Rising you might think any and all Republican ‘terrorism’ (which is what the Easter Rising would have been viewed as had it not led to the Free State) was wrong.

    You, as an NI Unionist will always view Republican terrorism as wrong, though you’re astute enough to be aware that not everyone agrees with you, especially your Republican neighbours. But that is understandable – you see your community as a target of the IRA and as such you hate them passonately.

    King as an American will view Muslim fundamentalist terrorism in the same light, and that’s his right.

    But to suggest that because you abhor terrorism in your country, against your people, means that all ‘terrorism’ is wrong is a bit niaive.

    Do you view the insurrection in Libya as wrong? What distinguishes that situation (or many others of late in the Arab world) from a terrorist campaign against the state? Because you don’t like Gadhafi?

    So it’s not terrorism if you don’t like the leader being toppled?

    As the man said, one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, and I see no contradiction in hating the terrorists (or freedom fighters as some would have it) who target your people, in your country, while supporting insurrections elsewhere in the world to remove what you see as an invading power, or evil regime, or whatever.

  • Neil,
    I’d differ with you on a few points there but that’s not surprising; this one however I’d take issue with:

    You, as an NI Unionist will always view Republican terrorism as wrong, though you’re astute enough to be aware that not everyone agrees with you, especially your Republican neighbours. But that is understandable – you see your community as a target of the IRA and as such you hate them passonately.

    King as an American will view Muslim fundamentalist terrorism in the same light, and that’s his right.

    Where I would differ (or one of the areas I’d differ) with King is how he deals with that terrorism.

    Look at those anti-Muslim quotes I’ve listed (and there are others).

    Is he within his right to transfer his understandable hatred of the terrorism which killed his fellow citizens onto the kind of wide-sweep demonisation of a community that, within the US, is overwhelmingly peaceful?

    I am able to separate in my mind those who carried out attrocities in Northern Ireland from their church and their “community”, the majority of whom, I’m sure, abhor them as much as I do.

    Whether for purely populist electoral reasons or whether because he genuinely believes what he is saying, King is doing the oppsoite here, he’s attempting to hold US Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of a very small number of murderous fanatics.

  • Neil

    Is he within his right to transfer his understandable hatred of the terrorism which killed his fellow citizens onto the kind of wide-sweep demonisation of a community that, within the US, is overwhelmingly peaceful?

    No, of course not. Using the logic ‘all Muslims are x’ is as wrong (or racist) as saying ‘all Catholics/Protestants/Americans are x’.

    I’m just saying that his understandable hatred of anti-American terrorism doesn’t preclude him from forming his own opinion on terrorism elsewhere.

    But tarring a section of his own society with that wide brush is not likely to do anything to alleviate anti-American terrorism, I can agree with you that it’s wrong, I only differ in the suggestion that a person’s opinion on terrorism is likely to be a one size fits all approach.

  • Alias

    “Is he within his right to transfer his understandable hatred of the terrorism which killed his fellow citizens onto the kind of wide-sweep demonisation of a community that, within the US, is overwhelmingly peaceful?”

    That isn’t what he did. That is, however, the hysteria from the liberal-left that predictably greeted his remarks. He referred to “radical Islam” and “Islamic fundamentalists” and not to, as your falsely claim, all of the Islamic community.

    What you haven’t shown is that King said anything that was untrue. You can’t, of course, because his statements are fact.

    You have also used the discredited edited version that King has already clarified: “The quote was taken entirely out of context by Politico. My position in this interview, as it has been for many years, is that too many mosques in this country do not cooperate with law enforcement. Unfortunately, Politico was incapable of making this distinction.” That edited version gives a deliberately false meaning to the statement by cutting out the context of non-cooperation.

    Here is what former White House and Pentagon official Douglas MacKinnon wrote about King’s remarks and the organised hysteria that greeted them:

    New York Republican Congressman Peter King has become the latest target of those who value political correctness and pandering over the national security of our nation.

    For recently speaking his mind and worrying about the influence radical Islam has in this nation, Congressman King is being predictably attacked by the left-leaning media, by the Democratic National Committee, and certain Muslim organizations. What exactly did Congressman King say to incite the anger and rage now being directed at him? Only things that seem to be of concern to a great many Americans.

    Among his statements, Congressman King said, “There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam…We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them…I think there has been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community…too many Mosques in this country do not cooperate with law enforcement…85 percent of Mosques in this country are controlled by extremist leadership.”

    Did the Congressman say anything that is not true? Is what he said not verified by a recent Pew Center survey, by the U.S. government, and by a number of news accounts of homegrown Muslims being taken into custody for plotting against our nation. Do facts no longer matter when it comes to protecting the United States from within?

    According to that recent Pew Center survey, a quarter of younger Muslim-Americans support suicide bombings in some circumstances. That’s right. They support suicide bombings. 25% of Muslim-Americans refused to give an answer when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda. 5% of Muslim-Americans said they had a favorable view of the group that attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried to attack the White House or Capitol building.

    If we accept the Pew Center’s estimate that there are 2.35 million Muslims in the United States, then 5% of that number would be 117,500 Muslim-Americans who have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. A number that should not only send chills down our spines, but cries out for eternal vigilance.

    What about the American Mosques themselves? According to various reports, at least 80% of U.S. Mosques follow or are influenced by the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia. Among other things, this sect believes it is a “religious obligation” to hate Christians and Jews and to think of the United States as “enemy territory.” In 2006, Bernard Lewis, one of the world’s leading scholars on Islam, called Wahhabism, “The most radical, the most violent, the most extreme and fanatical version of Islam.

  • Alias

    Here’s the last paragragh, and the whole article:

    What about the American Mosques themselves? According to various reports, at least 80% of U.S. Mosques follow or are influenced by the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia. Among other things, this sect believes it is a “religious obligation” to hate Christians and Jews and to think of the United States as “enemy territory.” In 2006, Bernard Lewis, one of the world’s leading scholars on Islam, called Wahhabism, “The most radical, the most violent, the most extreme and fanatical version of Islam.”

    Why do those on the left in our country not want us to speak of this? Why do so many Democrats not want us to question the motives of those from within who look favorably upon Al-Qaeda? Surely it’s not for crass political reasons or to pander for votes.

  • Mainland Ulsterman

    Of course Al Qaeda and the IRA were totally different: the IRA were gentleman bombers, decent British terrorists … thank you Stewart Lee:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYzQtSxoKE
    Al Qaeda are just rude: not even a phone call.

  • Mainland Ulsterman

    Neil,
    “As the man said, one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, and I see no contradiction in hating the terrorists (or freedom fighters as some would have it) who target your people, in your country, while supporting insurrections elsewhere in the world to remove what you see as an invading power, or evil regime, or whatever.”

    More than a bit flakey, no? So terrorism is OK for me but not for you … I am searching for the logic or principle at work here and don’t see any. Moral relativism has had its day, I’m afraid, and those self-contradictory arguments don’t wash any more. It’s not enough just to say, well I don’t regard this as terrorism, and expect to be respected. I could go around calling my cat a dog, it is my right to do so; but if I fervently contend that it’s true, then I deserve to be ridiculed and no, people do not have respect my ‘opinion’. And I write as a professional opinion researcher here.

    It also seems as if, for you, terrorism is just another everyday political tactic, just a way to express yourself. This kind of glib, casual approach to life-shatteringly awful atrocities is unfortunately endemic within Republican discourse. It is a big part of why Republicans, even at a time of non-violence, are so disliked by everyone else.

  • Alias:

    “You have also used the discredited edited version that King has already clarified: “The quote was taken entirely out of context by Politico”

    The post has been ammended to include the full quote.
    People can judge for themselves what he meant.

  • Kevsterino

    Peter King answers to an electorate in New York. His actions are entirely understandable if one bears that in mind.

  • Rory Carr

    “It is a big part of why Republicans, even at a time of non-violence, are so disliked by everyone else.

    Not everyone else surely, Mainland? I am a terribly popular fellow down my neck of the woods. The faces of old people and children break into smiles at my very approach. Even the local bobbies tip their helmets as I pass by and the local villians down the boozer are always eager to give me first preference of their spoils from off the backs of lorries.

    But this ‘terrorism’ business – such a pejorative term. And also so subjective. So subjective in fact that Britain and the US would really wish to copyright it so that it can only be applied, Humpty Dumpty-like, to whomsoever they say.

    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
    “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”

    Through the Looking Glass (1872) – Lewis Carroll

    Essentially ‘terrorism’ is what the powerful refer to as war waged against them by the less powerul.

    War of course is the dignified term given to the waging of terrorism by the powerful upon the weak.

    Some forms of ‘terrorism’ inflicted by the powerful are not even categorised as acts of war but rather as the application of law as in rendition and torture, water-boarding and other interrogation techniques and the maintenance of curfews by blanket saturation of civilian areas with deadly gases as on the Lower Falls , as in selective internment of one section of the population and subsequent brutal interrogation techniques of hooded captives. The well planned attack on marchers by shock troops of the Parachute Regiment on Bloody Sunday was designed precisely to terrorise the Catholic population into withdrawing support from the Civil Rights Movement. There are whole state industries engaged in the most vile research into the many ways of inflicting terror upon civilian populations.

    But so long as the Big State Terrorists control the airways and the press and so long as they have willing dupes of journalists willing to use words to mean just what they choose them to mean then there will always be those slavehearts who weakly swallow their masters’ cup of propaganda soup. Which is why journalists of the calibre of Robert Fisk are so precious to us and why I will be going to hear him speak next Saturday at the Woodstock Literary Festival in Oxford.

  • Mainland Ulsterman

    Rory,
    You may well be popular among other Republicans; the point was that everyone who isn’t a Republican – that is most people across NI society – tend to dislike Republicanism pretty intensely. Support for terrorism is a deeply polarising act, at the risk of stating the obvious.

    “Essentially ‘terrorism’ is what the powerful refer to as war waged against them by the less powerful.”
    That is tired old cant, if I may say so. Terrorism is not some noble battle against the state, but the killing and threatening of ordinary people, when other forms of protest are available. Those other forms of protest were chosen by most people in Northern Ireland, but Republicans chose violence because of a twisted, ideologically-driven belief in its “cleansing” power. For which the rest of us had to suffer.
    People do not have the right to wage war against other people in a democratic society, even if the democracy is imperfect.
    The Republican Movement now accepts the wrongness of terrorism. As Sinn Fein said in its declaration of support for the GFA in 1998, “We reaffirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise.”
    But you seem to suggest it’s an acceptable tactic to use. How far out on the fringes of Republicanism are you?

  • Kevsterino

    Mainland, I believe the statement you cite and subsequent offerings from Sinn Fein speak of political violence in Northern Ireland as an anachronism. They changed tactics.

  • RepublicanStones

    In that regard, King is spot on.

    Absolute bullshit Alias.

    I’d really love to hear kings sources for this 80% –

    ,b>King’s claim that four of every five American mosques are radical in nature isn’t just ludicrous at face value, it’s factually wrong. The best research on the subject, the Detroit Mosque Study from 2004, found that just “6 percent of Detroit’s mosque-attending population espoused” extreme views, while the “vast majority of American-Muslims” rejected such beliefs. According to a 2000 study of U.S. mosques, over 70 percent of mosque participants “strongly agree” that Muslims should be involved in American institutions and should participate in the political process.

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/25/140549/king-radical-mosques/

    Alias then informs us that King never said there were too many Mosques in the US.

    “The quote was taken entirely out of context by Politico. My position in this interview, as it has been for many years, is that too many mosques in this country do not cooperate with law enforcement. Unfortunately, Politico was incapable of making this distinction.”

    Care to explain what King meant when he said this

    We have unfortunately, we have a, uh, too many mosques in this country, too many people that are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully. I think there’s been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community. There’s a real threat here in this country.

    Video here http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/03/10/149817/peter-king-too-many-mosques-fact-check/

    Why Alias, do you seek to misinform?

  • carl marks

    Mainland Ulsterman says

    Rory,
    You may well be popular among other Republicans; the point was that everyone who isn’t a Republican – that is most people across NI society – tend to dislike Republicanism pretty intensely. Support for terrorism is a deeply polarising act, at the risk of stating the obvious.

    Hmm you would wonder why SF is the second largest party in the north then or do you only count those who agree with you

  • lamhdearg

    Lets see if this will put peter, off some other peoples xmas card list, from wikis page on him so not all maybe true,
    “On May 27, 2010, the House of Representatives moved to vote to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Representative King voted against the repeal of this policy”, So he dony like gays,then,
    “Comments about Michael Jackson
    On July 5, 2009, shortly after the death of Michael Jackson, King made a video statement calling the late entertainer a “child molester”. He also chided the media for its coverage of Jackson’s death:
    Let’s knock out the psychobabble. He was a pervert, a child molester, he was a pedophile” So he dony like michael ( or is it blacks).

    And if anyone was thinking of nailing their flag to kings unwavering mast,

    “In 2000, he called then-presidential candidate George W. Bush a tool of “anti-Catholic bigoted forces,”,
    “King later became a Bush supporter: “Look, we have not been attacked in seven years and it’s not because of luck.”
    And on the subject at hand,

    “During the 1990’s King enjoyed a close relationship with the Muslim community in his congressional district. King often gave speeches at the Westbury Islamic Center, held book signings in the prayer hall, took in Muslim interns and was one of the few Republicans who supported U.S. intervention in the 1990s to help Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Muslim community thanked King for his work by making him the guest of honor for the 1993 opening of a $3 million prayer hall. For years, a picture of King cutting the ceremonial ribbon hung on the bulletin board by the mosque’s entrance.”

    ohh and last but not least
    “King criticized the activities of WikiLeaks and in December 2010 suggested that they be designated a “terrorist organisation” and treated as such by U.S. agencies.”.

  • lamhdearg

    carl,
    may i answer that,
    as mainland says most people dont vote s.f.

  • lamhdearg

    carl,
    If i may,
    As mainland says most people dont vote s.f.

  • carl marks

    lamhdearg
    If i may
    and the percentage of people who have a vote don’t vote unionist either is that because of their support of loyalist and state terrorism, but as the man says one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter after all who put up statues to the UDR

  • Alias

    RS, there are a couple of basic errors of comprehension in your post.

    The first one is you fail you grasp that King’s claim is that “85 percent of Mosques in this country are controlled by extremist leadership” and not that 85 percent of Muslims in the country are extremists.

    As your copy-and-paste ‘rebuttal’ claims a percentage for the amount of Muslims in a particular district who have “espoused extreme views” it is relevant to the actual claim made by King and, ergo, does not refute it.

    In fact, your figure of 6% for the number of Muslims in the US who “espouse extreme views” is higher than the figure from the recent Pew Center survey which puts it at 5%, so not only do you fail to refute King’s claim you actually enhance it, so well done there.

    The other basic error is that you don’t grasp how a statement can be edited by those with an agenda to alter its meaning. So you can then think the statement “there were too many Mosques in the US” does not have a different meaning when it is placed in its unedited context:

    “We have unfortunately, we have a, uh, too many mosques in this country, too many people that are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully. I think there’s been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community. There’s a real threat here in this country.”

    I don’t blame you for your second error of comprehension because you were brainwashed by those who edited the statement so that you would think what they wanted you to think.

    Of course, King has yet to conclude his hearings at the Homeland Security Committee into the level of the threat posed by radical Islam, but the valid arguments that all of Islam is a threat to the US won’t be a finding of it.

  • carl marks

    sorry should have read

    lamhdearg
    If i may
    and the majority of people who have a vote don’t vote unionist either is that because of their support of loyalist and state terrorism, but as the man says one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter after all who put up statues to the UDR

  • Alias

    Typo: “…it is irrelevant to the actual claim…”

  • Alias

    Now to come back to the level of threat posed by radical Islam in the US to the US and why the Homeland Security Committee should be concerned about it:

    “According to that recent Pew Center survey, a quarter of younger Muslim-Americans support suicide bombings in some circumstances. That’s right. They support suicide bombings. 25% of Muslim-Americans refused to give an answer when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda. 5% of Muslim-Americans said they had a favorable view of the group that attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried to attack the White House or Capitol building.

    If we accept the Pew Center’s estimate that there are 2.35 million Muslims in the United States, then 5% of that number would be 117,500 Muslim-Americans who have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. A number that should not only send chills down our spines, but cries out for eternal vigilance.”

    A figure of “117,500 Muslim-Americans who have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda” or 5% of Muslims is a very serious problem for national security, particularly when terrorism is of the home-grown variety.

    Thanks to Republican Stones, we can now know that the figure is likely to be higher than 5% so we can now use this higher figure of 6% to give a figure of 141,000 US Muslims who “espouse extreme views” and who are a threat to national security.

    So again, well done, RS. 😉

  • RepublicanStones

    So again, well done, RS.

    No probs Alias, im always happy to bring your little attempts at misinformation to light. 😉

    The first one is you fail you grasp that King’s claim is that “85 percent of Mosques in this country are controlled by extremist leadership” and not that 85 percent of Muslims in the country are extremists.

    I recall asking for a source for this claim. One which you seemed happy with, and one which King has not provided a reputable proven source for.

    What you haven’t shown is that King said anything that was untrue. You can’t, of course, because his statements are fact.

    So wheres this evidence that proves 80-85% of US Mosques are controlled by radical immams? And i guess you think its a fact that there are too many Mosques in the US, another of Kings statements which you claimed he didn’t say by writing that it Oneill used the discredited edited version that King has already clarified

    Unfortunately Alias, the video evidence is there, no matter how much you claim it was taken out of context. It wasn’t, he said what he said.

    Further

    A figure of “117,500 Muslim-Americans who have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda” or 5% of Muslims is a very serious problem for national security, particularly when terrorism is of the home-grown variety.

    Holding a favourable view of AQ does not a radical or extremist make. No matter how hard you may seek to tar the American Muslim community with your one big bigoted brush. So we have Alias supporting a man who claims that 80-85% of Mosques in the US are controlled by extremists, the broader inference thus being that the faithful who attend these imaginary 80-85% of mosques are being brainwashed with extremist views (which would be an overwhelming majority of the US Muslim population if that were the case….but its not). Here is the guy King cites for his imaginary figure of 80% of the Mosques being controlled by extremists*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Kabbani#Controversy_and_criticism

    * Kabbani plunged into further controversy when he accused Muslims who advise the United States about Islam as being “extremists themselves”.

    Ever get tired of swinging that big brush Alias?

    And just for reader tuning in i’ll provide those links again…

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/25/140549/king-radical-mosques/

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/03/10/149817/peter-king-too-many-mosques-fact-check/

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/10/28/127117/peter-king-muslim-cooperate/

    I listened to the first round of kings hearing on CSPAN, and I was glad to hear a few sane voices rubbish the hatemongers.

  • Mainland Ulsterman

    Carl,
    Lamhdearg has it right – The point was about SF being polarising, so obviously SF’s level of support is not germane to that.
    Sinn Fein has a false sense of its own importance because it is a growing party in a growing community. But reality check: it’s still only representing around a quarter of the electorate and it stands alone of the major parties in trying to justify past terror. The vast majority do not buy into the SF narrative. It is of course a shocker for northern nationalism that so many of its adherents, as you point out, do take the morally vacuous SF line; I feel for those nationalists who do not.

    Kevsterino,
    “Mainland, I believe the statement you cite and subsequent offerings from Sinn Fein speak of political violence in Northern Ireland as an anachronism. They changed tactics.”

    Yes I know that’s how they try and spin it. Their words are a statement of principle, not time-specific:
    “We reaffirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise.”
    Don’t worry I do see the lacuna SF can crawl through to pretend that these principles, for some reason, only start from 1998. But it is a perverse interpretation nonetheless: principles are by their nature normative and generalised statements, so do not comfortably fit with being time-bound and selective in application. If they still thought the violence of 1976 or 1987 was OK, then they could not really profess a “total and absolute commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means of resolving differences on political issues”. If they only meant “from here on” (which I’m sure they did), they should have said that. Clearly from what appears in this bog, unionists were right to be wary of Republican sincerity in this renunciation of violence, were right to see it as tactical only and therefore right to insist on decommissioning as a confidence-building measure.

    The truth is, SF were humiliated in the GFA negotiations, as most accounts of it agree and as evidenced by the hilariously staged “celebrations” in Republican areas: the lady doth protest too much, as they say. The peace process backfired on them, as they gambled on the UUP walking out of negotiations and being able to wangle a sneaky deal without us. But we stayed and our negotiators ran rings around them. The passage I quote is just one example. They’ve done well to make the best of it since, but the truth is, the GFA finished Republicanism ideologically.

    As the buffoonery of Peter King shows, trying to justify some terrorism while condemning other very, very similar terrorism isn’t a tenable position.

  • Mainland Ulsterman

    Freudian slip: should have been “blog” not “bog”!

  • lamhdearg

    Carl.
    I do not do the whole bad guys goods guys routine, for me its just us and them, and king (so far) is one of them.

  • carl marks

    Mainland Ulsterman

    SF is the fastest growing party in the island, unionism on the other hand is both fragmented and its share of the vote is declining. Whilst you make reference to SF past you manage to
    ignore unionisms many links to terrorism as I mentioned before state terrorism from the release of the B specials on the people of Ardoyne and Bombay st escorted by loyalist mobs in 1969 to the glorification of the sectarian UDR, also the both open links with loyalist terror groups (uwc lockout, Dumcree, the third force, Ulster resistance ) and the mealy mouthed attitude taken by unionists when the uda or uvf etc carried out a atrocity, then we can look at holy cross, Harryville etc.
    As for your reality check could I point out that even the biggest unionist party is not that much larger than SF?

  • carl marks

    Mainland Ulsterman

    sorry left out the decades of state discrimmation against Catholics
    So please spare us the whole holier than thou, we did nothing wrong, it was all there fault thing.

  • Drumlins Rock

    60:30:10,
    less than 10% of the troubles deaths were sercurity force related and most of those were justified in the circumstances.

  • carl marks

    lamhdearg (profile) says:
    10 September 2011 at 12:34 am

    Carl.
    I do not do the whole bad guys goods guys routine, for me its just us and them,
    Just another way of saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”

  • Mainland Ulsterman

    Carl Marks,
    Sorry, I won’t spare you the holier than thou, nor will anyone else. It’s just lazy and nonsensical to say that because no one was perfect that everyone was equally guilty. Republicans carried out the lion’s share of the Troubles, it’s all recorded and logged – too late now to try and pretend it was some kind of even fight. The bald statistics say otherwise.

    Btw, when you’re ready to start “loving and cherishing” me, let me know.

  • Mainland Ulsterman

    Also, are you actually proud that the part of the Provisional IRA is now the fastest growing party on the island? Something of an indictment on whoever let that happen, I would have thought. I wouldn’t be bragging about it, if I were a nationalist, I would be deeply embarrassed.

  • Mainland Ulsterman

    sorry, “party” not part

  • Kevsterino

    The principle involved seems to be when a peaceful political path exists, take it. I’m not so sure the path opened in 1998 was there in 1969. Politically, it was a very different time and place. As for al-Qaeda and Sinn Fein being “very, very similar” it looks like you’ve placed a very very low bar on what qualifies for that description.

  • carl marks

    “Carl Marks,
    Sorry, I won’t spare you the holier than thou, nor will anyone else.”
    No unionists rarely spare us the holier than thou, tending to forget the reasons that the PIRA came into being was because of unionist opposition to any attempt to peacefully reform the state and the willingness of that same unionism to resort to violence when it doesn’t get its way.
    But I’ll answer a few of your questions firstly I’m neither proud or ashamed of SF rise to power i merely point out the reasons, (how do you feel that the party that formed the third force and Ulster resistance, and worked with the loyalist terror groups in the UWC lockout and built their policies on intolerance and anti Catholicism has grown to be the biggest party in the north).
    As to republicans carrying out the lions share if we are going to play the blame game , who planted the first bombs, carried out the first murders, attacked the civil rights marchers at burntollet, orchestrated the house burnings in Belfast ,and took to the streets in force every time a compromise was attempted( sunningdale the Anglo Irish agreement) so please spare me the mopery.

  • galloglaigh

    60:30:10

    I take it the 60 and the 30 relates to republican(60) and loyalist(30)?

    One thing that is always overlooked in that argument, is the republican and loyalist volunteers who were paid state agents. Were their actions supported and protected by the state? Does that therefore change the 60:30:10 argument?

    Two names come to mind:

    Mark Haddock and Freddie Scappaticci.

  • HeinzGuderian

    gall

    So,in essence,the whole ‘armed struggle’ was sponsored by The State ?

    Suddenly it all begins to make sense. The republican murder gangs weren’t fighting against the British,they were actually fighting for them !! 😉

    Slow learners indeed.

  • Spud

    Its hard to believe that it was 10 years ago. I was living in NYC at the time and the images of what I saw that day will stay with me forever. I worked on the world trade center after the first attack in 1993 and often looked out from the 98th floor thinking what would have happened if the tower had fell over that time and how many city blocks it would have landed on but I dont think anyone could have predicted what was coming a few years later and the nature of how the buildings fell.
    Almost 700 people of Irish decent died that day some of whom I knew through the construction trade.
    It took a long time to get your head around the fact the towers were gone from the skyline and at the time someone remarked that it looked like a child that had lost his two front teeth.
    I still have a great fondness for NYC and I am looking forward to one day returning to see the finished WTC site.

  • Mainland Ulsterman

    galloglaigh,
    Ah, the conspiracy theory angle: the British state actually did most of the killings in the Troubles. Well, it’s one way for terrorist apologists to try and dodge responsibility I suppose. Enjoy your dinner with Elvis on the moon. I think I’ll go with the neutral academic researchers’ figures from CAIN, rather than the figures of the main protagonists. Call me a stickler but I kind of prefer the rigorously researched and impartial version of the stats.

    Would be interesting for the Republican Movement though if it were true – wouldn’t that mean they were then puppets of the Brits? Is it still going on: is Martin McGuinness a British stooge? I wonder what proportion of Republican killings Republicans are actually prepared to take responsibility for.

    You and Carl Marks seem to be doing that ‘having your cake and eating it’ thing. There are two common Republican narratives of the Troubles that are in direct contradiction with each other – something Malachi O Docherty goes into in much more detail in ‘The Trouble With Guns’.
    Narrative 1: The IRA campaign was something Republicans deliberately set out to do; it was their duty and mission to seek the good of ending British sovereignty in NI – the “Armed Struggle”, with Republicans as the rain-makers. Republicans use this when they want to portray themselves as having a plan and being in control.
    Narrative 2: The IRA campaign was reluctantly pursued; lack of political progress for nationalists and oppression by British security forces forced Republicans to take up arms to protect their community. In this, Republicans are not the rain-makers, they are passive and reactive, more victims than sinners. They use this when they are asked to take responsibility for what they did in pursuance of the armed struggle.

    The thing is, they can’t both be true. If there was a defensive phase at all, it was brief and would not account for a 30 year campaign in which Republicans year after year killed way more than Loyalists or the security forces.

    The first narrative is the more honest one – and the one that fits both Republican ideology and the facts of what actually happened in the Troubles, as epitomised by the 60/30/10 figures in CAIN and the pattern of Republicans being the leading killers in every year of the Troubles except two, for the first 20 years of the campaign. (For most of the Troubles, Republicans accounted for around 70 per cent of the killings The overall figure is as low as 60 per cent mainly because of the massive scale of Loyalist killings in the 1971-6 period – though this was still lower than Republican killings even then. Killings by the security forces were running at an average of about 5 per cent of annual Troubles deaths for most of the years of Troubles – one in twenty).

    Republicans portray their own campaign 1969-98 as some kind of unfortunate event that befell them, in which they were as much victims as anyone else. That is, when they’re not portraying themselves as soldiers of destiny who were on an inspiring historical mission of blood sacrifice. They are an Orwellian nightmare of doublespeak.

    And Carl Marks for these reasons and many, many more, you should be ashamed of the rise of Sinn Fein. For evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people to do nothing, as they say. Sitting on the fence over the Republican Movement is not an option. And in answer to your other point, I am deeply ashamed that the DUP are the largest unionist party (though worth pointing out there is no moral equivalence between them and Sinn Fein).

  • carl marks

    Mainland Ulsterman

    enjoyed your sermon, if I may sum up for you.
    Unionists done nowt wrong, there was no loyalist violence before the provos kicked off, no bigotry in the old Stormont, no discrimination against Catholics what happened is that the Catholics went mad and try as unionists might they just would not settle down. The UVF UDA UFF LVF third farce (meant that spelling) or Ulster resistance never existed,
    The DUP and UUP never worked with terrorists, no prime minister ever said” not a catholic about the place”, and peaceful civil rights marchers were never attacked by mobs of viscous bigots.
    Glad we got that all sorted out, now tell me what’s your line on the tooth fairy.

  • carl marks

    . oh and did I forget that every time a compromise was attempted unionists threatened civil war

  • lamhdearg

    Dont get me wrong, slugger is goad crack for local stuff, however i have an interest in the middle east, and slugger is slow to run storys on it, the yanks are upping the anti on iran today, and i wondered if anyone could link me to a slugger type (brit/irish based) site that pushed the middle east a little higher on it’s agenda. who knows you could get rid.

  • RepublicanStones

    I feel your pain lamhdearg.