Terrorism Denial from Dhimmi Democrats

Pages: 1 2

There are topics that aren’t supposed to be discussed in polite society. Islamic terrorism has become one of those topics.

After September 11, it was put forward to us that the problem was not Islam, but the radicalization of some Muslims.  And yet the defenders of that formulation also refuse to discuss Muslim radicalization as a tangible reality, rather than a convenient excuse for shelving the topic.

Congressman Peter King’s attempts to hold hearings on Muslim radicalization have been met with attacks from the very people who should be welcoming the hearings. If the problem really is a minority of extremists, then why not hold hearings that delve into how this radicalization occurs and what can be done about it?

Instead Congressman King has been smeared and his hearings have been hijacked on the most ridiculous pretexts. During the latest hearing, Democratic Congressman Cedric Richmond complained that while Muslims might be responsible for 90 percent of the terrorist attacks. “The problem see is that we’re only talking about the 90 percent. It’s the 10 percent that we’re not talking about that keeps me up at night.”

Democratic Congresswoman Janice Hahn began rambling about being troubled by “radical Christians” and her colleague, Democratic Congressman Al Green said that he didn’t oppose hearings on radicalization, just hearings that didn’t “focus on the entirety of radicalization”.

“Christians who become radicalized, they become a part of Islam,” Green stuttered. “Why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?”

Well why not? The answer to the question is as apparent as the reason for the hearings. The United States is not suffering from a plague of Methodist suicide bombers. Terrorism Denial is a refusal to deal with the question. And at the hearing, it came in many forms.

Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson insisted that Islamic terrorism was no longer a factor because Osama bin Laden, Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, a minor figure, had been killed. “Despite a changing world which requires us to look forward, this committee seems to want to look back.”

Islamic terrorism was now something in the rearview mirror and there was no reason to look back at it. But the highlights of the hearing came from the only witness called by the Democrats whose Terrorism Denial broke new ground.

Faiza Patel denounced the hearings for perpetuating “the notion that it is what American Muslims believe that leads to terrorism” and insisted that, “You cannot look at ideology as a predictor of violence.” Not only did Patel reject the very idea of Muslim radicalization, but she insisted that terrorism somehow exists apart from religion and ideology. And added that Muslim terrorists are actually secular.

Committee Democrats insisted on treating Patel as an expert, while belittling and denigrating Muslim witnesses like Asra Nomani and Zuhdi Jasser who, unlike her, actually came to talk about the subject under discussion.

When King suggested that there had been enough experts and that perhaps the committee might want to hear from actual people, Congresswoman Laura Richardson announced that she was offended. Richardson has made a small career out of being offended. When she was investigated for ethics violations, she was offended and claimed that it was only due to her race.

But there is an entire industry dedicated to being offended. Some of the professionally offended are Muslims, some are Dhimmis, but all are ready and waiting to be offended at any hour of the day. When the 3 AM phone call comes in, they can be out of bed and dictating a press release to convey the full measure of their ‘offendedness’ in the blink of an eye. And what offends them is any discussion of the intersection between Islam and terrorism.

Their arguments run as follows. Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, which they prove by pointing out that the majority of Muslims in America have never killed anyone. Talking about terrorism offends and alienates Muslims, which they imply may radicalize them into becoming terrorists. Therefore we shouldn’t talk about Muslim radicalization because it doesn’t exist and because by doing so we risk radicalizing Muslims.

What the Democratic assault on the hearings really showed is that Muslim radicalization, once the fallback position on Terrorism Denial, has now been placed outside the realm of discussion. You cannot talk about it, unless you take a TSA position, that the hearings should involve the radicalization of absolutely every religious group under the sun—so long as they aren’t Muslim.

Pages: 1 2

  • kong.ming

    "Why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?"

    Symbols of Christianity:
    Beautiful home for all to share
    A feast for the return of the prodigal son with a seat for all

    Symbols of Islam
    Other people's countries colorized with their nations' flags

    • sandykramer

      Under "symbols of Islam", don't forget "decapitated heads."

  • oldtimer

    More died on 9/11, killed by MUSLIM TERRORISTS, than by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour.
    US Navy-2008, USMC-109, US Army-218, civilians-68…..DON'T forget….

  • Judas

    Are they still technically Terrorists even after taking over at least 2 countries (Egypt and Libya) attempting to take a third, and we have suspicions of Turkey and Iran? Maybe the one good thing that may come out of this is we may be able to return one day to more conventional warfare where the majority of our enemies wear a distinguishable uniform and there are clear military targets.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    These Congressional hearings do out those who are bought and paid for by the Muslim Brotherhood
    or who are Islamist infiltrators into our Nation gratis the leftist multiculturalism udermining American
    security and identity. The hearings also spotlight just how far we have been subverted and how
    close the danger is to each and every American. Islam is not American and is against our own
    Constituion and laws, it is and enslaving incorporation of vexing evil and anathema to liberty.
    Deportation on a mass scale is the best answer, no Islamists allowed in America for any reason
    should be the order of the day until we are free of this internal threat…………………..William

    • christadelphians

      Never weave all pieces on the same loom. The United States of America knows it own fundamentalist believers (the extreme and certain conservative evangelist Christians) who use the American Constitution and laws from an imperialist and one side view. They want to see a freedom in the understanding that every one should believe the same as they do, and have the same way of live they choose for. The same fundamentalism we can find in the Muslim population, were some distorted the Islamic teachings to get more power for themselves and to get other people under their thumb. Those fundamentalists on both sides are trying to form an enslaving incorporation of vexing evil and anathema to liberty.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        You are a bald faced liar and I have no respect for duplicitious claptrap, keep your falsehood
        to yourself………………………………..William

  • Jaladhi

    This idea of "radicalization " is totally bogus and is formulated by Muslim apologists and Muslims themselves to spare Islam from the blame. The fact is all Muslims are radicals according our definition of radicals. All Islam is radical and that is what a Muslim child learns from the age of five or so and later the mullahs and imams continue pounding the idea in the mosques. If it is not so according to these apologists, please tell me why no imam ever teaches in his sermon to love Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as opposed to what is written in Quran to hate them all?? Case closed!!

  • Libertyman

    Well I beleive there was a book written about the "Unholy Alliance" between the left (radical secular religionists) and Radical Islam … Mr Horowitz can you help us out … in other words do we expect anything less between these two destructive groups bent on destroying "Truth" with short lies in the form of emotional instability designed to intimidate often starting with the words "Im offended".

    May the the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob help us all. (did I just offend someone?)

    • KarshiKhanabad

      Noooooo…..you haven't offended anyone! Go ahead, say it again! Only you could add that He is also the God of our fathers and the God of Creation, and that He is our most merciful, just and loving God.

      (Sorry if this offends Snackbar1948. No, I'm not.)

  • Atlas_Collins

    Islam Delenda Est!

  • kendrick1

    QUESTION: If the Muslims invaded the United States of America, on whose side would the Muslims here, fight? On whose side would the blacks fight?

    • KarshiKhanabad

      The vast majority of black Americans are Christians.

      The Prislam converts and Nation of Islam freaks are a distinct though dangerous minority within a minority but get most of the publicity. Black Christians who put on their Sunday best & go to worship in the House of the Lord don't make it into the evening headlines.

      As to Muslims from the Middle East or South Asia, that's anyone's guess. As the butcher bin Laden himself put it, the majority of Muslims will wait to see who is the strongest horse before deciding.

  • Tom Sullivan

    Democrats are reactionary to anything Republicans want, including what Peter King wants. These hearings show Democrats for the fools they are, the opposition to American security, and their aid and comfort to our enemies. Republicans should exploit Democrats betrayal of common sense and of America to the hilt. Democrats are sitting ducks, for any who care to pick them off. Republicans, get to it. (Oops, it that a gun reference?)

  • Schlomotion

    Mr. Greenfield is doing his three favorite things. First, complaining about Muslims. Second, complaining about black people. Third, making sure that Jewish and Christian Zionist fundamentalism flourish at the expense of Islamic fundamentalism. What good is crazy unless you have cornered the market on crazy? We can't have Sheila Jackson Lee and and Al Greene issuing cheap knockoffs of chosenness and its enemies can we? No. No. Brand X extremism must retain space number one as the chief product on the shelves. Only Kashrut certified fearmongering products are allowed on the media market.

    • Zionista

      bling$ – you're such a predictable oaf shmo, and thanks for helping my $ for Israel fund to GROWI!! the joke's on you!

  • Ghostwriter

    Oh boy! You're a real piece of work,Schlomind. I never read in the above article a single word that complained about black people. It complained about those like Sheila Jackson-Lee,who's rhetoric has been extremely off-the-wall for a long time. As for Rep. Green,just because he shares a name with a singer from the 1970's,doesn't mean he hasn't hit a few sour notes with his attacks on the King hearings.
    As for the Muslims,these hearings wouldn't have been necessary if they had any interest in defending this country against terrorists. They were more interesting in whining about being victims and less interesting in confronting Muslim terrorists. And,once more,you play your tired attack on Jews. We all know that you hate them. Your defense of the Islamic fundamentalists is as nauseating as your typical Jew hating rants. Why don't you come back when you get your head out of the clouds?

  • ChristChurchtourist

    To all Dhimmicrats who deny the existence of a link between Islam and jihad; here's something that's
    undeniable: Last Friday, June 22nd, there was a meeting in the White House, between Hani-Nour El-Din, a
    member of Gamaa' Islamiyya, a jihadist group, and Deputy Security Advisor Denis McDonough. El-Din asked McDonough if Omar Abdel Rahman, "The Blind Sheikh,"(responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing) could be
    transferred to an Egyptian prison. McDonough turned him down; but tell us, O Dhimmicrats, what is jihadi El-Din, a member of a designated terrorist group, doing in the WHITE HOUSE?

  • mrbean

    Sorry. Islam and the supporters and the followers of Islam are the enemy. The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies–and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them–especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. Such a policy would make us safe, expose Islamic anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral, and embolden the better Muslims to support our ideals and emulate our ways. We should begin by declaring that any terrorist groups and states that threaten us with anti-Western violence in response to free speech will be met, not with appeasement, but with their total destruction.

  • Bone in my Trous

    Drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca and sit back and watch…

  • AnnRandy

    While the radical Muslims are making bombs and sharpening symitars, the "moderate" muslims are at Walmart shopping for prepaid cell phone detionators and wet stones…
    They are all on the same page of their "holy" book, the Koran…

    Go to CAIRS Facebook page and read all the "uplifting, civilized" rantings of the "religion of peace"..

  • Ronald Johnston

    Deport all the muslims along with the yellow-bellied liberals and let Israel take over airport security and keep them all out!!!!

  • http://mysaunakit.com/which-sauna-room-will-you-choose/ Gerald Birmingham

    Just look at his face – isn't that terrorism? Such blatant denial makes me laugh.