Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is this really happening in America, 2011? Quite saddening.

Radicalization Hearings: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/10/radicalization.hearings/index.html

Does anyone remember?


This must be photoshopped, since its obvious muslims can't be real Americans.


Also, while we are busy blaming Muslim americans for being terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and desire to bring us all under Sharia law, this happened yesterday.

Spokane MLK Day bomb suspect tied to hate group : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014448146_apusmlkparadeexplosive5thldwritethru.html

Clearly muslims in disguise.

Edit: this post has a bit of hyperbole, but it is difficult for me to not be upset by this callous vilification of one religious subset in America. What if this was about violent christian fundamentalists, would it look different?

They can't be terrorists, they are white.

(Obviously, that was a joke.)

And anyway, what happened to the guy who flew a plane into a IRS building? He wasn't a terrorist. If he simply subscribed to a different religion, he would have been a "Muslim Extremist", but because he was a white christian male, he was a peeved guy and no-one cared.

Well, there are two things going on:

1) While the vast majority of Muslims are law abiding citizens, a higher percentage of american Muslims have planned or carried out terrorism, or acts that are similar to terrorism, at least that have acheived media coverage. For a group that's a few percentage of the US population, they make up a lot of our domestic terrorists.

2) There is political hay to be made in fueling people's fear and worry.

The analysis I've read says that these hearings run the risk of alienating not just Muslims (who actually often trend GOP) but other religious minorities. Sikhs, jews, Mormons, etc.

What I am trying to do in this interview is to make people aware of the fact that the threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant...

The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born...

Of 126 people who have been charged with allegations related to terrorism . . . 50 had been American citizens...

It is one of the things that keeps me up at night. You didn't worry about this even two years ago -- about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do. And -- that is of -- of great concern...

[Americans] have to be prepared for potentially bad news... The terrorists only have to be successful once

The ability to go into your basement, turn on your computer, find a site that has this kind of hatred spewed...they have an ability to take somebody who is perhaps just interested, perhaps just on the edge, and take them over to the other side

Scary stuff. Wonder if he's right.

biccat wrote:

What I am trying to do in this interview is to make people aware of the fact that the threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant...

The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born...

Of 126 people who have been charged with allegations related to terrorism . . . 50 had been American citizens...

It is one of the things that keeps me up at night. You didn't worry about this even two years ago -- about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do. And -- that is of -- of great concern...

[Americans] have to be prepared for potentially bad news... The terrorists only have to be successful once

The ability to go into your basement, turn on your computer, find a site that has this kind of hatred spewed...they have an ability to take somebody who is perhaps just interested, perhaps just on the edge, and take them over to the other side

Scary stuff. Wonder if he's right.

There is nothing wrong with this statement, the only thing wrong is the fact that this whole Committee is about investigating MUSLIMS. There are a lot of sites with HATE-SPEWING RHETORIC that have nothing to do with muslims.

Edit: looking at some of the comments on that CNN story... man, are people really as incredibly ignorant everywhere around the world, or is America just special?

This is a subject that really, really makes my blood boil so I will try to say very little other than this.

In europe there was a religion that was hated and was blamed for most disasters much like Muslims are today, they were the jews and until the holocaust a disgusting number of people disliked them due to their religion.

Do we really need another genocide to make people realise that not everyone in a certain religion is a prick?

This analogy probably makes no sense but I don't give a damn.

"The analysis I've read says that these hearings run the risk of alienating not just Muslims (who actually often trend GOP)"

That's why they get what they deserve. For a while Hispanics were trending GOP as well, and I can almost turn a blind eye to the hate tossed at them.

They wouldn't need to go to all this trouble if they'd just muzzle 'em.

</goingtohell>

daedalus-templarius wrote:Edit: looking at some of the comments on that CNN story... man, are people really as incredibly ignorant everywhere around the world, or is America just special?

No, it's just people who post comments on internet news sites that are special (and for all the clever lads who follow it up with a snark about posting on internet message boards: ) Of course, we also have people who think it's appropriate to loudly protest a woman's shelter fundraiser, because helping muslim women is...bad... or something. Then again, Orange County conservatives are definitely a very distinguished kind of 'special.'

daedalus-templarius wrote:Edit: looking at some of the comments on that CNN story... man, are people really as incredibly ignorant everywhere around the world, or is America just special?

Nope, the UK is a cesspit for intolerance.

edit - consider me warned

grew up in Quiapo which has a big muslim community and most were living below the poverty line. not one myself but i did get alienated in school (one of those) for associating with them. but yeahi should know better.

Posting an offensive statement and then disclaiming it does not make it any less offensive -- nor does it make it any less a violation of DakkaDakka rules. Please avoid making blanket statements about any faith or creed (or the lack thereof, for that matter). If you find that you are having trouble expressing your opinion in a non-offensive way, please consider not expressing it at all. Making a habit of doing otherwise will likely result in suspensions.

biccat wrote:Scary stuff. Wonder if he's right.

Yeah, he's right. People forming radical, hate-filled opinions because of bs they heard on the internet is a very real phenomenon. Why just right now there's a congressional inquiry into Muslims because people read some bigoted gak on the internet about muslims.


In other news, the Interpol study into terrorism in Europe was released a month or so ago. The study found Islamic groups were responsible for less than 1% of all terrorist plots in Europe, with most coming from seperatists or fringe political factions. It didn't really get a lot of press though, because it didn't help us with the 'fear Islam' narrative.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Scary stuff. Wonder if he's right.

Yeah, he's right. People forming radical, hate-filled opinions because of bs they heard on the internet is a very real phenomenon. Why just right now there's a congressional inquiry into Muslims because people read some bigoted gak on the internet about muslims.


In other news, the Interpol study into terrorism in Europe was released a month or so ago. The study found Islamic groups were responsible for less than 1% of all terrorist plots in Europe, with most coming from seperatists or fringe political factions. It didn't really get a lot of press though, because it didn't help us with the 'fear Islam' narrative.

It really confuses people when you tell them that the largest terrorist organization in the world is buddhist

The last major attack on American soil that lead to 10 years and counting of war that was carried out by what demographic which resulted in what department being formed? And now everyone is in a fuss because they mention the reason for their existence specifically and to prevent similar occurance? Oh wait, its a non-white group that's being discussed, it must be racist and be fueled by hate.

I realize its a house subcommittee but i doubt the topic would have come up if the above implied events didn't happen. Hell, muslims in the article acknowledge there are issues with radicalism in the us.

As to the comment that makes it seem that if it were a white christian group it wouldn't be a problem: do the KKK not get a frick-load of press when they pull something? How about Westborough Baptist? No press at alll? Just shrug it off eh?

Luco wrote:I realize its a house subcommittee but i doubt the topic would have come up if the above implied events didn't happen. Hell, muslims in the article acknowledge there are issues with radicalism in the us.

Perhaps you should look into other groups which suffer radicalisation - in Spain you have the ETA group - a basque separatist group who like to shoot people who don't agree with them.

One group which many Americans should be familiar with are the IRA in Ireland which has killed many people and destroyed large amounts of property.

Both white, non-muslim groups which draw in disenfranchised people and radicalise them. However, that doesn't mean we should marginalise the populations they come from - that just makes the problem worse.

Luco wrote:As to the comment that makes it seem that if it were a white christian group it wouldn't be a problem: do the KKK not get a frick-load of press when they pull something? How about Westborough Baptist? No press at alll? Just shrug it off eh?

But examples of the KKK and Westborough Baptists (though the WB are non-violent) don't lead to calls for the ethnic/religious community that these people came from to be discriminated against.

Not that the atricle was about that. It's obvious that some posters didn't actually read through the article.

That is true, however it should be noted that racist/hate attacks on muslims in the USA nearly doubled after 9/11.

Anything that focuses negative attention on a particular group within society can have serious consequences, so senior members of Congress really should be careful about how they deal with this sort of issue.

There have been only 50 US muslims convicted of involvement in terrorism in the past nine years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the plus side, a hearing like this provides a forum for both sides. The non-bigoted members and witnesses have been very effective in fighting back against the anti-political correctness people.

Yes, but you shouldn't ignore them. I don't think there is anyone that agrees the KKK isn't a problem when they show up or various other groups with degrees of radicalism within its ranks, however given both how recent and the scale of the attacks it needs to be looked into. So we should be afraid of irritating them? Was a similar stance in place when prosecuting the various Irish gangs in New York or Boston? I don't think it implicates the Muslim-American community of the events any more than it implicates me in IRA activity (Irish on both sides) or KKK activity. If this was a debate on the radicalization of young white males or the radicalization of Christianity and I really wouldn't have an issue with it I don't think.

@Killcrazy
I'm not surprised, nothing like the worst attack since Pearl Harbor to get a people to get anxious and lash out. I do have to wonder though, which some of the more experienced political people will likely know, if this is more of an issue with Congress or if its an issue with the media in terms of attention. Surely, a similar committee would have been free of hassle in prior years. Interesting stat, would you have the source for it? Are these lone cell types or...? If they were convincted and with sufficient evidence wouldn't that make for 50 potential bombings? Let's say 35 for arguments sake as our justice system is far from perfect.

@Emperor's Faithful
Perhaps I've been in an odd place but I've had a lot of people assume who I am by the misconstrued idea of the type of faith they identify with WB than any personal or scriptoral belief. So perhaps not explicitely, but it seems to work in that manner from my experience. Can we define discrimination in this case? I don't tend to define it as ensuring screening at an airport or such thing to be any more than security procedure given the current situation.

The fear, I imagine, is that many people are unwilling, or unable, to differentiate between a Muslim and a radicalized Muslim in the same way that Arab is often utilized as a synonym for the same group.

In many ways this is just a repeat of the way any given Asian-American was either Japanese or Chinese, regardless of their actual heritage, up until about 20 years ago.

Luco wrote:The last major attack on American soil that lead to 10 years and counting of war that was carried out by what demographic which resulted in what department being formed? And now everyone is in a fuss because they mention the reason for their existence specifically and to prevent similar occurance? Oh wait, its a non-white group that's being discussed, it must be racist and be fueled by hate.

I would say that if hearings were held into the radicalisation of Christianity because of some anti-abortion violence, that drew in speakers from across the Christian spectrum would be considered bigoted by many posters on this site. And they'd be right.

The issue is radicalisation. It is more common in Islam than elsewhere, but it is still incredibly rare within Islam. Failing to understand that, as this committee does, is bigotry.

Basing policy and government actions around bigoted ideas is stupid and counter-productive.

There's a couple of different points here I'm confused about, though that could just be because I'm not embedded in the American culture or mindset being an Australian. All of the political posturing aside, surely there exists a place where a discussion can be held without immediately being written off as racist or discriminatory. There are serious questions that deserve attention. I will say that while the person at the head of this committee did strike me as a bit of a popularist douche with his overly-patriotic speech about it being "his duty to protect Americans" etc, the general inference that young people within the Muslim faith can be more open to radicalisation is not a new idea, and there are reputable academic papers that discuss it.

@sma11wood

there really isnt a lot of merit to those studies when you take a look at what theyre really saying in those papers behind the psycho-social statistical mumbo jumbo

"young people are more accepting of new ideas"

or

"young people are more accepting of X"

you can attach whatever as X and narrow down your demographic further as long as you put it in a certain age bracket and youll find numerous papers and research that will show pretty much same data.

@ Bakerofish

I disagree. The papers to which I refer talk less about statistics and more about social phenomena within cultures themselves. Long story short, in doing research for an anthropology paper at uni I read a fair amount of literature specifically discussing the radicalisation of Muslim youth, both in traditional and Western societies. The general consensus among these pieces is fairly similar across the board; the perception-of-self within a Muslim (or traditional) society is quite different to that of a Western society. While that in itself isn't a negative thing, it can be shown to increase one's susceptibility to messages from radical groups.

That may well be true, however it is not the sole possible explanation of the cause of increased radicalisation of young muslims. Radicalisation is partly due to muslims being a minority in western society, looked down on by many people because of their religion post-9/11, suffering discrimination and high unemployment, and so on.

This creates a situation where muslims may become excluded from mainstream society. Some of them not unnaturally react against that, some non-muslims react against their reaction, and the cycle continues.

In other words, if you want to reduce radicalisation of muslims, holding special hearings about how you want to reduce radicalisation of muslims ironically is one of the worst things you could do.

However, it makes an excellent grandstand for popularist political demagoguery.

We should not ignore episodes of radicalised white/christian youth including political movements and riots such as the Chartist movement of the early 19th century, Copperheads in the 1850s, Paris riots of 1968, anti-Vietnam war protests, and so on. There are many examples. There are also many examples of black-led movements and riots.

did those papers delve in whether "the sense of self" or actual age is the factor that increases susceptibility?

howd they get to that conclusion? is it a recent thing? whats the baseline?

and who wrote the research?

the concerns i have with these "research" is that they all say the exact same thing

"that somethings preying on the mind of our youth omg omg!"

"X is different than Y so this correlates to a susceptibility to Z"

seriously, just google Youth and susceptible and youll see the exact same research methods and results over and over again displayed over different demographics

i erred earlier and after reading on the issue more the word "Muslim" is just a new angle and its taking advantage of a very divisive issue


Automatically Appended Next Post:
did they ever stop to think that MAYBE that the youth has always been susceptible regardless of race religion and creed and that we really should be addressing the real issue?

lobotomize our kids!

...

wait...

sebster wrote:
The issue is radicalisation. It is more common in Islam than elsewhere, but it is still incredibly rare within Islam. Failing to understand that, as this committee does, is bigotry.

Now I didn't pick this up from that article. For the most part the committee was exemplary in disbanding the notion that Islam itself was a problem that needed to be addressed in the US. If anything it's the Media hyperbole that's to blame. Maybe the fact that there is a committee discussing this at all is worrying but the content in the discussion, and the conclusions it reached, are hardly so (from what I understood).

The whole thing is political theater. They know it is a very small amount yet have a hearing for something they already know. It lets everyone run around and play to their base to varying degrees.

Ahtman wrote:The whole thing is political theater. They know it is a very small amount yet have a hearing for something they already know. It lets everyone run around and play to their base to varying degrees.

I think that's about it.

From an actual security perspective, wouldn't the FBI prefer the government to stay quiet, so as not to tip off those groups that are actually radical?

Ahtman wrote:The whole thing is political theater. They know it is a very small amount yet have a hearing for something they already know. It lets everyone run around and play to their base to varying degrees.

Well yea, we knew that, but are they serving cake?

Congress =