Set your DVRS:Congressional hearings over Somali youth, Islamization,and RadicalImams start Thursday

[LayZie G.]

The title of the congressional hearings:Radicalization in American Muslim Community

 

When: Thursday, March 9th, 2011, sponsored by the new Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King

 

Scheduled Time: 9:30am-12:30pm

 

Possible witnesses: Ayan Hirsi(reports said the chairman changed his mind but he wanted to summon her to washington DC in order to testify over radicalization of Somali youths and the threat it presents to Somali-Americans and how to curb the threats. However, Abdirizak Bihi of Minnesota, a somali community leader will instead testify on behalf of the Somali diaspora. He will discuss his own personal experiences and narrate the story of his nephew and how he was radicalized in local Masjid, under the watchful eye of the Imam and perhaps rebuke American-Muslim leaders(i.e Imams) for failing to protect the somali youths while going head-to head with congressman keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim congressman.

 

 

 

Who will be on trial: CAIR, possibly(council on American-Islamic Relation), Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota(he says he is a participant but really, King is putting all of his eggs on the BIHI basket), and "80% of American Imams", stated Chairman King.

 

This will make good TV, so set your DVRS: Some of the keywords you should pay attention to are, Islamism, radicalization of SOMALI YOUTH and Al Shabaab.

 

Peter King's position: "Islam is not on trial, militant Islam or Islamism is....."

[Somalina]

lol@Ayan Hirsi... what a joke!

 

Looking forward to watching it.

[Jacpher]

I'd rather DVR a paint wall dry than anything Peter King has to say about Muslims. But Jon Steward did a segment on this. Enjoy it.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/peter-king-terrorist-sympathizer/

 

“wait until Congressman Peter King gets a hold of terrorist sympahizer Peter King!

 

 

NAACP to Pete King: Drop your effort to stereotype Muslims.

[Che -Guevara]

Oh dear Lazy-don't tell me you support this too?

 

This will come to pass?

 

Ayan is funny. I was listening to one of her interviews where she claimed she was former member of the Muslim Brotherhood (in Kenya), and that there are not to be trusted even though they say will respect people's will in Egypt and Tunisia.

[Jacpher]

^Lazy supports anything that pays the bills including snitching habar lixdan jir daris la ah.

 

I've seen that article on huff post and not only she claimed Muslim Brotherhood recruiting her in her teen years but the ikhwaan were actually openly financially and politically operating in Kenya and recruiting the youth to extremist agenda. Remember this was a group that was banned in their home country let alone operate in foreign country that enjoys friendly relations with Egypt. I couldn't believe the amount of factual errors she was passing to her readers.

[bilan]

Forget about naagtaas waalan, I need to know what is wrong with Bihi???

[LayZie G.]

^Bihi seems to be tied lipped about his upcoming showdown with Rep. Keith Ellison. He truly wants to go head to head with the congressman' over the handling of the missing boys case, reported some media outlets. Perhaps, Minnesotans can shed light on what Bihi is truly afteR? exposure, more funding for his organization or does he really have an axe to grind with the congressman?

 

Salaam Che,

yo ayuda usted, not the congressman...as far as whether or not I support this latest debacle, I would have to pass.....or else, I wouldn't have made light of the issue as far as it making good tv. (remember, if I support something, you will know about it, no need to ask)

 

I believe that the whole hearing is a waste of time and to top it all off, the move is more political than anything.

 

If the congressman was genuinely concerned for the well being of the American-Muslim communities(I highly doubt it), he would engage them directly instead of bringing people like Bihi as a witness to the hearings and some other man whose family member was victimized by radicalization and another creature from a different state standing as an expert witness for the republicans in the committee. (there is nothing to be gained over listening to moans and cries of families, this hearing has no meat)

 

Sure enough, the list of witnesses from the democrats in the committee are more credible than King's witnesses. That said, we should not minimize the threat your boys ( shabaab) pose... Nor should we allow Imams who sympathize with such groups get away with murder.(figuratively) We should condemn radicalization and any recruiting effort thats underway, wherever they may exist and however long it takes, Peter King should engage community leaders(imams) and should encourage law enforcement to strenght these relationships. Alliances, real alliances ought to be formed, between local officials, local enforcement and community leaders(imams etc) but not the BIHI's of the world and while his heart might be in the right place, he is the wrong man to lead this campaign.(on the surface, he appears to be a softy and does not come with an impressive resume. More importantly, I am not fond of community organizers)

 

That said, I can't help the backlash this would have on both congress and popular opinion but Peter King truly believes that he is serving his constituency, so why should we object if his own constituency are not making noise with specific to future hearings he may hold? He is a public official and he feels like he is doing the job he was elected to do and there is nothing anybody can do about it, least of all me or you.(atleast for the time being)

 

We can disagree with him, hold protests as some groups have held in NYC this past monday. If I am not mistaken, the name of the rally was something like" "We are all Muslims today" or something close to that....Russell simmons and others called the congressman out with respect to his previous positions and his involvement and support for the IRA. King seems to hold his ground and this hearing is a go, he will not be deterred.

 

I only called out folks to dvr, as most of us are working with the exception of Jacpher. I wanted folks to pay close attention to the BIHI testimony and the hearing because like it or not the Somali name will be dragged to the headlines in the coming hours, days, weeks and specific to BIHI , HE WILL BE FRONT AND CENTER. Atleast with AYAN HIRSI, we would have brought the popcorn....

 

 

yours truly,

 

LayZie G

[Gheelle.T]

Watch it here:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42006600#42006600

[ElPunto]

Peter King is a horse's a$$. The Muslims of the New York state area should support his opponents and unseat the SOB.

 

The people who supposedly are representing the Somali community must be careful about not misrepresenting the threat from Al-Shabaab. There is no practical risk to the US of terrorism from Al-Shabaab including those who have fought with them from the West. Al-Shabaab is a misguided nationalist movement and this rubbish about Al-Qaeda affiliation is pure propaganda and a recruiting tool.

 

Sadly - there are a lot of Somalis who wish to use what's happening back home to peddle agendas and misrepresent the situation. Listen to this young fool, who claims, that unless the Canadian government or companies hires young Somalis they will be 'hired' by Al-Shabaab. As if.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/1221254309/ID=1768103718

[Prometheus]

US Congress holds radicalization hearings all the time. And it is only reasonable that Muslim radicals garner copious attention given the political realities of Islamism and jihadism. When Somali- Americans or Pakistani- Americans go back to their countries to fight alongside other religious maniacs, it’s a serious problem. You would have to be delusional (and perhaps pious) to deny that some US Muslims are radicalized. Al-Shabaab is a terrorist organization, not a Somali nationalist movement; Lakshar-e-Taiba, in Pakistan, is more interested in the revival of the defunct Caliphate than reclaiming Kashmir. Which brings me back to my initial query: Why have these hearings become so controversial? It has everything to do with hysterical conservatives and rabid right-wing nut-jobs. Such conservative demagogues have tarred these hearings with xenophobia and bigotry.

 

In the last five years, House and Senate committees have held at least 22 hearings focusing on the problem of radicalized American Muslims plotting terrorist acts or joining Al-Qaeda and similar groups, according to congressional staffers. The investigations have also been bipartisan, convened by the likes of Maine Senator Susan Collins — a moderate, low-key Republican — and former Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat. While King has been slammed for focusing solely on Muslims — the title of his investigation is “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response” — five Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearings since 2006 have had the phrase “violent Islamist extremism” in their descriptions.

 

The point is that the controversy over the hearings is mostly about King, who commands media attention like some lost member of the Kardashian family,

Source: Slate Magazine (Weigel), via Andrew Sullivan.

[Che -Guevara]

Prometheus;701195 wrote:

US Congress holds radicalization hearings all the time.

Give me an example?

[Jacpher]

Peter King's modern-day witch hunt

 

By Eugene Robinson

Thursday, March 10, 2011; 8:00 PM

"There is nothing radical or un-American in holding these hearings," Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) claimed Thursday as he launched his McCarthyite probe of American Muslims. He could not have been more wrong. If King is looking for threats to our freedoms and values, a mirror would be the place to start.

 

Here's why. Imagine a young man, a Muslim, who changes in troubling ways. His two best friends become concerned, then alarmed, as the young man abandons Western dress, displays a newfound religiosity and begins to echo jihadist rhetoric about the decadence of American society. Both friends suspect that the young man has become radicalized and might even attempt some kind of terrorist attack.

 

One friend is Muslim, the other Christian. Does the Muslim friend have a greater responsibility than the Christian to contact the authorities? By the logic of King's witch hunt, he does.

 

The Homeland Security Committee hearings that King has convened are billed as an inquiry into "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response." In other words, King suspects that the Muslim community is somehow complicit. Individuals of one faith are implicated; individuals of another faith are not.

 

As Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), one of two Muslims in Congress, said in his moving testimony, King's premise assigns "collective blame" to American Muslims. "Demanding a community response . . . asserts that the entire community bears responsibility," Ellison said.

 

In his pugnacious opening statement, King noted that his plan to hold these hearings had been criticized by "special-interest groups and the media," which he said had gone into "paroxysms of rage and hysteria" at the prospect. "To back down would be a craven surrender to political correctness," he said. In case someone missed the point, King later said it was our duty to "put aside political correctness and define who our enemy truly is."

 

King asserted that "this committee cannot live in denial." He then went straight there - into denial - by paying no heed to the witness best situated to answer the committee's question.

 

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca testified in opposition to King's premise, citing figures demonstrating that radical, extremist acts of crime are committed by non-Muslims as well, and that seven of the past 10 known terrorist plots involving al-Qaeda have been foiled in part by information provided by Muslim Americans. Baca said his officers have good, productive relationships with Muslim leaders and citizens. Law enforcement officials from other jurisdictions where there are large Muslim communities could have given similar testimony, had they been invited.

 

King is trying to peddle the hooey that moderate Muslims do not speak out against extremism. It took Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) to note the irony that among the committee's witnesses were two devout Muslims - one Syrian American, the other Somali American - who were there to speak out, quite loudly, against extremism.

 

King, in effect, was demanding to know why he didn't see what was taking place before his eyes. Perhaps he was distracted by the need to maintain constant vigilance for any hint of political correctness.

 

That's really what King's grandstanding is all about. The purpose of these hearings isn't to gather information. If it were, officials of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security would have been asked to testify. In addition to inviting Minneapolis-based Abdirizak Bihi, a Somali American whose nephew was recruited by the terrorist organization al-Shabab, King could have brought in police from the Twin Cities to testify about cooperation by the Somali immigrant community.

King's intent is theatrical, not substantive; he's not trying to elicit facts, he's inviting catcalls - and cheers.

 

It should not be so, but Islamophobia is a powerful force in American politics. There are those who will applaud King for associating the phrase "American Muslim community" with the phrase "who our enemy truly is."

 

But decency is a powerful force, too. The hearing's indelible moment came when Ellison broke down in tears. He was telling the story of Mohammad Salman Hamdani, a young Muslim who rushed into the World Trade Center to try to rescue victims just before the towers collapsed. His remains were found in the rubble.

Hamdani was not just a Muslim, Ellison said, fighting to choke out words that no one could dismiss as politically correct. He was "an American who gave everything for his fellow Americans."

[Prometheus]

Che -Guevara;701201 wrote:

Give me an example?

Awoowe, I am loath to answer obtuse questions. But I shall make allowance for the possibility that you are egregiously ill-informed. One need conduct only a simple search of the congressional archives to ascertain the number of such hearings. The records and transcripts of hearings on the looming problem of ‘radicalization’ and ‘homegrown terrorism’ are available on the House and Senate websites. King’s unfortunate theatrics and demagoguery have ignited a needless conflagration of controversy. That being said, I doubt that any sensible person - conservative or liberal, muslim or non-muslim- would oppose a level-headed examination of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. And, of course, Muslim radicals do not have a monopoly on terrorism; Christian extremists, Right-wing Militias, and White Supremacists, all pose a substantial threat to US National Security.

 

In some ways, SOL is a microcosm of the Muslim Community. Other than you, Maaddeey, Kashafa, and the few lily-livered merchants of martyrdom, I venture that the majority of Nomads shun terrorism and jihadism as morally odious.

 

P.S. These are only some of the hearings by the Homeland Security and Governmental affairs Committee. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees have convened similar hearings.

 

- Hearing, October 30, 2007: “The Role of Local Law Enforcement in Countering Violent Islamist Extremism.”

- Hearing, September 10, 2007: “Confronting the Terrorist Threat to the Homeland: Six Years After 9/11.”

- Hearing, September 19, 2006: “Prison Radicalization: Are Terrorist Cells Forming in U.S. Cell Blocks?”

- Report, May 8, 2008: “Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.”

- Hearing, March 11, 2009: “Violent Islamist Extremism: Al-Shabaab Recruitment in America.”

[ElPunto]

Prometheus;701195 wrote:

US Congress holds radicalization hearings all the time. And it is only reasonable that Muslim radicals garner copious attention given the political realities of Islamism and jihadism. When Somali- Americans or Pakistani- Americans go back to their countries to fight alongside other religious maniacs, it’s a serious problem. You would have to be delusional (and perhaps pious) to deny that

some

US Muslims are radicalized. Al-Shabaab is a terrorist organization, not a Somali nationalist movement; Lakshar-e-Taiba, in Pakistan, is more interested in the revival of the defunct Caliphate than reclaiming Kashmir. Which brings me back to my initial query: Why have these hearings become so controversial? It has everything to do with hysterical conservatives and rabid right-wing nut-jobs. Such conservative demagogues have tarred these hearings with xenophobia and bigotry.

Why is it a serious problem for the US if Somali-Americans go back to their own country to fight what they see as an illegimate occupation/invasion of Somalia? Are you really claiming these folks are going to come back and detonate themselves in American malls? Don't confuse Muslim country specific violence with the hysteria inducing specter of Islamic terrorist attacks in the US.

 

So what if some US Muslims are radicalized - so are some redneck white Americans. The proper action is a law enforcement one - watch and monitor and move in if things are progressing to the point of acting on the radical views. The mere presence of some radical US Muslims shouldn't result in national hand-wringing and hysterical commentary. But then Americans aren't known for rationality.

 

The primary reason that these hearings have attracted condemnation from so many is they are based on the premise that American Muslims have done little to prevent radicalization. A premise that lends itsefl to bigoted scapegoating rather than an examination of facts. It's also a premise that is not provable. If this was yet another hearing on radicalization and attempts to understand it and counter it - it would have attracted as little attention as the previous ones you've pointed out.