Representative Peter King, the chairman of the US House of Representatives’ Homeland Security Committee, has sparked uproar by claiming that US Muslims are being radicalized by Al-Qaeda operatives.Any of the above news to you? Any of it sound the least bit "hateful" or "over-the-top." Doesn't it sound like a solid, rational approach to take in dealing with a genuine problem, an approach that takes pains not to tar all Muslims with the same radical brush and purposely steers clear of the claim that every Muslim is equally susceptible to radicalization or is a participant in the radical scene?
“The overwhelming majority of Muslims are outstanding Americans, but at this stage in our history there is an effort to radicalize efforts within the Muslim community,” King said.
He accused Muslim leaders of not cooperating with law enforcement authorities in fighting terrorism.
“We're talking about al Qaeda,” King said.
“We're talking about the affiliates of al Qaeda who have been radicalizing, and there's been self-radicalization going on within the Muslim community, within a very small minority, but it's there.
“And that's where the threat is coming from at this time,” he added.
King is planning to hold a hearing this week on what he describes as the “radicalization” of US Muslims.
He claims that mosques in the US have become a hotbed of “radical Islam” and should be put under surveillance.
That's the way it sound to me. But then, I'm not trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, a la Congressman Keith Ellison. To show how determined he is to shut down the whole probe, he isn't even claiming to worry that the investigation with spark a blow-back against the ostensibly non-radical Muslim majority. He says King's "anti-Muslim remarks" are unacceptable because they are "stigmatizing the Muslim minority." That would be the radical Muslim minority, the one whose adherent have been know to open fire servicemen at Fort Hood and tuck an explosive package into their undies."
Aren't those sorts of people supposed to be stigmatized? Isn't stigmatizing them one way to try to get them to know it off with the "Allahu Akbar!" and exploding apparel? And shouldn't Keith Ellison, ho claims to be a "moderate" be first in line to stigmatize them? That he isn't, and that he is actually trying to prevent the stigmatizing of those who most assuredly deserve it, and who are a threat to all Americans, tends to call into serious question both his alleged "moderation" and his commitment to upholding the oath of office he swore(even if he did swear to it on a Koran--or is he thinking that maybe that gives him a loophole to put the interests of his faith before the interests of his country?