or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Rep. Peter King, Duplicitosaurus Rex.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rep. Peter King, Duplicitosaurus Rex.

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
I am not into name-calling, but there are few words which can describe Rep. Peter King (R, NY) better than "duplicitous scum ball of the worst variety".

Article here.

The gall of this man is stunning beyond all belief. And as someone who had a much older relative as well as one of his closest friends murdered by the Provisional IRA in the UK some years ago, I understand that I am coming from a somewhat biased point of view. I also understand that King is not alone in the general hatred that has become endemic in this country for Muslims... the general (privately held) DC view is that they are all terrorists and should be rounded up in internment camps and done away with... (if they had their way)... but King is not someone who has any moral or ethical grounds to make *ANY* decision or judgement about terrorism... and worse yet, he is the the chair of the House Homeland "Security" (?!!) Committee.

Here is the kind of activity that this rotten evil bastard apparently supported: This particular blast in Manchester (central northern England) was caused by a truck bomb loaded with 3500lbs (1.5 tons) of military grade Semtex (+ ammonium nitrate) high explosives causing >$1 Billion of destruction and injuring 200+. The IRA, funded in part by US based organizations such as the Manhattan based NORAID, (and also aided from other nations) detonated hundreds of bombs in the UK and European mainland between the 1970s and 2000, and was responsible for killing 1800+ civilians and injuring 10s of thousands.

And here's Peter King... spearheading the demonization of an entire religious/ethnic group, on because some kid (patsy) like Abdul Mutallab (the underwear bomber) can get escorted onto a plane with FBI assistance and conveniently fail to detonate a device that could never have exploded in the first place... for one example.

The differences between the IRA in Europe and "Islamists" in the US is considerable.
*IRA members are from an approved religious faith in the US understanding. Militant Islam are Muslims (duh?)... ie not approved
*IRA attacked soft targets on a daily/weekly basis. Militant Islamist attacks in the US are rare, and are almost exclusively fingered on patsies who are consistently and intimately linked to FBI informants.
*The IRA went for targets where security was low or nonexistent, thus guaranteeing the success of the operation. Islamists have an obsession with airports and airplanes, the most secure places, thus guaranteeing the failure of their operation.. but with maximum media coverage and publicity.

King and his IRA thug buddies can go rot in hell. Terrorists Я US?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I am not into name-calling, but there are few words which can describe Rep. Peter King (R, NY) better than "duplicitous scum ball of the worst variety".

Article here.

The gall of this man is stunning beyond all belief. And as someone who had a much older relative as well as one of his closest friends murdered by the Provisional IRA in the UK some years ago, I understand that I am coming from a somewhat biased point of view. I also understand that King is not alone in the general hatred that has become endemic in this country for Muslims... the general (privately held) DC view is that they are all terrorists and should be rounded up in internment camps and done away with... (if they had their way)... but King is not someone who has any moral or ethical grounds to make *ANY* decision or judgement about terrorism... and worse yet, he is the the chair of the House Homeland "Security" (?!!) Committee.

Here is the kind of activity that this rotten evil bastard apparently supported: This particular blast in Manchester (central northern England) was caused by a truck bomb loaded with 3500lbs (1.5 tons) of military grade Semtex (+ ammonium nitrate) high explosives causing >$1 Billion of destruction and injuring 200+. The IRA, funded in part by US based organizations such as the Manhattan based NORAID, (and also aided from other nations) detonated hundreds of bombs in the UK and European mainland between the 1970s and 2000, and was responsible for killing 1800+ civilians and injuring 10s of thousands.

And here's Peter King... spearheading the demonization of an entire religious/ethnic group, on because some kid (patsy) like Abdul Mutallab (the underwear bomber) can get escorted onto a plane with FBI assistance and conveniently fail to detonate a device that could never have exploded in the first place... for one example.

The differences between the IRA in Europe and "Islamists" in the US is considerable.
*IRA members are from an approved religious faith in the US understanding. Militant Islam are Muslims (duh?)... ie not approved
*IRA attacked soft targets on a daily/weekly basis. Militant Islamist attacks in the US are rare, and are almost exclusively fingered on patsies who are consistently and intimately linked to FBI informants.
*The IRA went for targets where security was low or nonexistent, thus guaranteeing the success of the operation. Islamists have an obsession with airports and airplanes, the most secure places, thus guaranteeing the failure of their operation.. but with maximum media coverage and publicity.

King and his IRA thug buddies can go rot in hell. Terrorists Я US?

Peter King is a good soul and cares about the American people. Do not blame him.
post #3 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

And as someone who had a much older relative as well as one of his closest friends murdered by the Provisional IRA in the UK some years ago, I understand that I am coming from a somewhat biased point of view.

Anyone else notice this?
post #4 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Anyone else notice this?

Actually, I did, but it did not sink in. So It appears that Sammi Jo is a he? Not the same person as Samantha Joanne Ollendale or however that other name is spelled....? I always assumed they were one and the same...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #5 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Anyone else notice this?

Quote:
....a much older relative as well as one of his closest friends....

Grammatical error... My English uncle and his friend, who were in a bar in Birmingham in the UK back in 1974. It should have been obvious to the reader that I was not referring to my friend. Had it been my friend I would have referred to that person in the first person, not the third. The pettiness, obsession with trivia, and comprehension "skills" that are sometimes displayed in here is breathtaking.

I guess that in P.O. I have to be *exact* in my expression or someone's going to pick it apart and come to an idiotic conclusion... rather than add to the thread of course.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Grammatical error... My English uncle and his friend, who were in a bar in Birmingham in the UK back in 1974. It should have been obvious to the reader that I was not referring to my friend. Had it been my friend I would have referred to that person in the first person, not the third. The pettiness, obsession with trivia, and comprehension "skills" that are sometimes displayed in here is breathtaking.

I guess that in P.O. I have to be *exact* in my expression or someone's going to pick it apart and come to an idiotic conclusion... rather than add to the thread of course.

I can see that. However, the word form used would have worked had you been referring to your friend as well. Sorry for misunderstanding.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I am not into name-calling, but there are few words which can describe Rep. Peter King (R, NY) better than "duplicitous scum ball of the worst variety".

Actually, you're totally into name calling.

Quote:

Article here.

The gall of this man is stunning beyond all belief. And as someone who had a much older relative as well as one of his closest friends murdered by the Provisional IRA in the UK some years ago, I understand that I am coming from a somewhat biased point of view.

You're biased, but I doubt it's because of that.

Quote:
I also understand that King is not alone in the general hatred that has become endemic in this country for Muslims... the general (privately held) DC view is that they are all terrorists and should be rounded up in internment camps and done away with... (if they had their way)... but King is not someone who has any moral or ethical grounds to make *ANY* decision or judgement about terrorism... and worse yet, he is the the chair of the House Homeland "Security" (?!!) Committee.

You have absolutely no standing to judge what the majority of people believe.

Quote:

And here's Peter King... spearheading the demonization of an entire religious/ethnic group, on because some kid (patsy) like Abdul Mutallab (the underwear bomber) can get escorted onto a plane with FBI assistance and conveniently fail to detonate a device that could never have exploded in the first place... for one example.

How the hell is he doing that? He's investigating the radicalization of American Muslims. In particular, he's interested in those that may be vulnerable to radicalization, such as African American males who are in prison. He has further taken issue with groups that oppose any attempt to deal with radicalism in the United States...specfically CAIR, which is about half a notch up from supporting terrorist organizations itself.

Quote:

The differences between the IRA in Europe and "Islamists" in the US is considerable.
*IRA members are from an approved religious faith in the US understanding. Militant Islam are Muslims (duh?)... ie not approved

Or, perhaps do you think it's that a large amount of terrorism is carried out by....radical Islamists?

Quote:
*IRA attacked soft targets on a daily/weekly basis. Militant Islamist attacks in the US are rare, and are almost exclusively fingered on patsies who are consistently and intimately linked to FBI informants.

They are RARE?

Quote:
*The IRA went for targets where security was low or nonexistent, thus guaranteeing the success of the operation. Islamists have an obsession with airports and airplanes, the most secure places, thus guaranteeing the failure of their operation.. but with maximum media coverage and publicity.

King and his IRA thug buddies can go rot in hell. Terrorists Я US?

Your delusion knows no bounds. Black is white, there is no such thing as radical Islamists who want to kill us, 9/11 was an inside operation....the list goes on. God forbid we have another large-scale successful attack. In addition to the tragic loss of life, I'll have to listen to you claim it was planned in Bush's game room at his ranch.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


blah, blah, blah, etc etc

How the hell is he doing that? He's investigating the radicalization of American Muslims. In particular, he's interested in those that may be vulnerable to radicalization, such as African American males who are in prison. He has further taken issue with groups that oppose any attempt to deal with radicalism in the United States...specfically CAIR, which is about half a notch up from supporting terrorist organizations itself.

SDW, did you realize that Peter King was the chief fundraisers for NORAID, the US organization which was responsible, amongst others in the Irish-American community, for arming and equipping the Provisional IRA, a terrorist group responsible for so much carnage in the UK and Europe for some 30 years?

from the article:

Quote:
Peter King’s association with the IRA began in 1980 when he joined New York Senator-elect Alfonse D’Amato on a fact-finding mission to Belfast, fulfilling a campaign pledge D’Amato had made to Irish-American voters on Long Island. For an outsider with few family links to Ireland, he quickly made some remarkable contacts with IRA insiders.

His closest friends became ‘Anto’ Murray and his wife Lucy who lived in the Lenadoon housing estate in West Belfast, a well-known IRA redoubt. ‘Anto’, a formidable gunman by all accounts, rose to become the Operations Officer for the IRA in Belfast and as such was responsible for ordering and organizing every shooting, killing and bombing in the city. On trips to Belfast, King would stay in their home.

When some years later, ‘Anto’ was imprisoned for kidnapping and plotting to kill a suspected British informer, Peter King kept a concerned eye on Lucy, even bringing her to Washington for a vacation and escorted her on a tour of the Capital Building. In an interview with me in 2005, King admitted that he had used Lucy as a model for a heroine in a novel he wrote, one of three potboilers he has produced based on his experiences with the IRA.

An indication of how accepted in IRA circles Peter King was can be gauged by the fact that on his trips to Belfast he was a welcome guest in the Felons Club, a drinking haunt whose membership is limited to IRA veterans who had served time in jail for the cause. His attendance at the exclusive club brought him to the notice of British intelligence who thereafter tagged him as a person of interest.

If are aware of this, yet still support this person and his raging hypocrisy, you are taking a position of support for a man who activated one of the world's most active terrorist gangs. Peter King has the blood of thousands on his filthy, corrupt hands. By the way, if this character was a political liberal, no doubt you would be frothing and foaming at the mouth.

If you are not aware of his history, then I suggest you do a reality check, rather than massaging your comfort zone with its usual diet of corporate media drivel and its accompanying authoritarian propaganda.

***

By not condemning this man's admitted affiliations, it appears that SDW is open to supporting international terrorism?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

SDW, did you realize that Peter King was the chief fundraisers for NORAID, the US organization which was responsible, amongst others in the Irish-American community, for arming and equipping the Provisional IRA, a terrorist group responsible for so much carnage in the UK and Europe for some 30 years?

from the article:



If are aware of this, yet still support this person and his raging hypocrisy, you are taking a position of support for a man who activated one of the world's most active terrorist gangs. Peter King has the blood of thousands on his filthy, corrupt hands. By the way, if this character was a political liberal, no doubt you would be frothing and foaming at the mouth.

If you are not aware of his history, then I suggest you do a reality check, rather than massaging your comfort zone with its usual diet of corporate media drivel and its accompanying authoritarian propaganda.

***

By not condemning this man's admitted affiliations, it appears that SDW is open to supporting international terrorism?

You're really a piece of work. I frankly don't know all that much about King. I do know that he's investigating Islamic radicalism on US soil. I agree that radicalization is a serious issue. I have heard him interviewed and not found anything to which I object. I don't see someone conducting a witch hunt or a McCarthy-esque inquisition. I see someone that seeks to better understand how American Muslims can be come radicalized, what leads to it, how they get there, etc.

As for his past: Do you have some evidence to present that he directly supported terrorism? By evidence, I mean something other than a story on Counterpunch. If he did, he is likely guilty of a crime. If he was sympathetic, I think that's wrong. He may even be every bit as bad a guy as you state. But what I do not see is how this constitutes hypocrisy.

Lost in all this is your own personal bias. Sammi, the perception I hold is that you think radical Islam is simply not a threat to the United States. You think the federal government has made it a convenient boogeyman. Further, you seem to support CAIR, believing its motives are true and just. Meanwhile, you ignore similar evidence concerning CAIR and international terrorism! There's a word for that...it's oh, yeah....HYPOCRISY.

Tell me, would you ever accept a person or committee investigating radicalization of Muslims in the US--even if it was run by another person? I doubt it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #10 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're really a piece of work. I frankly don't know all that much about King. I do know that he's investigating Islamic radicalism on US soil. I agree that radicalization is a serious issue. I have heard him interviewed and not found anything to which I object. I don't see someone conducting a witch hunt or a McCarthy-esque inquisition. I see someone that seeks to better understand how American Muslims can be come radicalized, what leads to it, how they get there, etc.

As for his past: Do you have some evidence to present that he directly supported terrorism? By evidence, I mean something other than a story on Counterpunch. If he did, he is likely guilty of a crime. If he was sympathetic, I think that's wrong. He may even be every bit as bad a guy as you state. But what I do not see is how this constitutes hypocrisy.

Lost in all this is your own personal bias. Sammi, the perception I hold is that you think radical Islam is simply not a threat to the United States. You think the federal government has made it a convenient boogeyman. Further, you seem to support CAIR, believing its motives are true and just. Meanwhile, you ignore similar evidence concerning CAIR and international terrorism! There's a word for that...it's oh, yeah....HYPOCRISY.

Tell me, would you ever accept a person or committee investigating radicalization of Muslims in the US--even if it was run by another person? I doubt it.

Try the wikipedia link to Peter King.

Support for the IRA
In the 1980s, King frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members.[12] In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said: “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.”[12][18] "In 1985, he convened a press conference before the start of New York City's St. Patrick's Day parade (for which he was Grand Marshal), and offered a defiant defense of the IRA: 'As we march up the avenue and share all the joy,' he declared, 'let us never forget the men and women who are suffering and, most of all, the men and women who are fighting.'"[19] Regarding the 30 years of violence during which the IRA killed over 1700 people, including over 600 civilians, King said, ""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". King compared IRA leader Gerry Adams to George Washington and asserted that the "British government is a murder machine". [20]
He called the IRA "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland."[21] A Northern Irish judge ordered King ejected from the former's courtroom, describing him as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”.[12] King called himself "the Ollie North of Ireland."[19] King did not meet Gerry Adams until 1984, four years after his liaison with the IRA began [1] and before that his links with the IRA were predominantly with its military, rather than the political wing, Sinn Fein. At this time he was friendly with Michael McKevitt, the common law partner of Bernadette Sands, sister of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. McKevitt was at the time a senior leader of the IRA and was its Quarter Master-General, in charge of arms acquisition. McKevitt planned a massive series of arms smuggling operations of weapons provided to the IRA by Libyan leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi during the mid-1980's. During this time, King would stay in their home in Co. Louth while visiting Ireland and was also very close to the IRA's former Operations Officer in Belfast, Anto Murray, who was convicted in 1990 of kidnapping a suspected British spy. As Belfast Operations Officer, Murray planned or authorised every IRA bombing, shooting and killing in the city. King would stay with Murray and his wife Lucy during visits to Belfast and after Anto Murray was imprisoned, he hosted Lucy Murray on a tour of the Capitol when she visited the United States. [2] He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons.[12][22][23][24] He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA activity in the UK.[12] When the Archbishop of New York embraced King at the city's St. Patrick's Day Parade, the Daily Mail "dedicated an entire editorial to the affair and called it the 'handshake of shame.'"[19]
In 1993, King lobbied for Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to be a guest at the inauguration of President Bill Clinton.[19] In 2000, he called then-presidential candidate George W. Bush a tool of "anti-Catholic bigoted forces," after Bush visited Bob Jones University in South Carolina, "an institution that is notorious in Ireland for awarding an honorary doctorate to Northern Ireland's tempestuous Protestant leader, Ian Paisley."[12]
He stopped supporting the IRA after being offended by Irish public opposition to the invasion of Iraq, labelling it as begrudgery rather than suspicion of and opposition to the war.[12]
In 2008, King spoke in defense of bail for a fugitive IRA member, Pól Brennan, who had escaped from prison in the UK and been detained in Texas 15 years later. The IRA member, who had broken out of prison during the Maze Prison escape and entered America illegally,[25] was being held without bail after his work permit expired; King said: "My experience dealing with (Irish) republicans is that they don't jump bail in this country. They honor their commitments."[26]


There you go. Even the sanitized wikipedia includes this stuff.

SDW, try a little experiment here: Replace the phrase "IRA" for "al Qaeda". Then replace the phrase "Peter King R-NY" with, say, a fictitious Muslim congressman named "Salim Mohammed D-XY".

We have a major terrorist enabler working in Congress, and a blind eye is being turned. What's new? Oh, lest we forget, the IRA are (nominally) "Christian"... ie Roman Catholic. Perhaps, in the light of decades of anti-semitic indoctrination of the US public against the world's Arab and Muslim communities, it is politically too incorrect to associate the terms "terrorist" and "Catholic". (Or "terrorist and Christian", or terrorist and anything else except the M word).

Probably enough said.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Try the wikipedia link to Peter King.

Support for the IRA
In the 1980s, King frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members.[12] In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said: 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.[12][18] "In 1985, he convened a press conference before the start of New York City's St. Patrick's Day parade (for which he was Grand Marshal), and offered a defiant defense of the IRA: 'As we march up the avenue and share all the joy,' he declared, 'let us never forget the men and women who are suffering and, most of all, the men and women who are fighting.'"[19] Regarding the 30 years of violence during which the IRA killed over 1700 people, including over 600 civilians, King said, ""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". King compared IRA leader Gerry Adams to George Washington and asserted that the "British government is a murder machine". [20]
He called the IRA "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland."[21] A Northern Irish judge ordered King ejected from the former's courtroom, describing him as an obvious collaborator with the IRA.[12] King called himself "the Ollie North of Ireland."[19] King did not meet Gerry Adams until 1984, four years after his liaison with the IRA began [1] and before that his links with the IRA were predominantly with its military, rather than the political wing, Sinn Fein. At this time he was friendly with Michael McKevitt, the common law partner of Bernadette Sands, sister of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. McKevitt was at the time a senior leader of the IRA and was its Quarter Master-General, in charge of arms acquisition. McKevitt planned a massive series of arms smuggling operations of weapons provided to the IRA by Libyan leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi during the mid-1980's. During this time, King would stay in their home in Co. Louth while visiting Ireland and was also very close to the IRA's former Operations Officer in Belfast, Anto Murray, who was convicted in 1990 of kidnapping a suspected British spy. As Belfast Operations Officer, Murray planned or authorised every IRA bombing, shooting and killing in the city. King would stay with Murray and his wife Lucy during visits to Belfast and after Anto Murray was imprisoned, he hosted Lucy Murray on a tour of the Capitol when she visited the United States. [2] He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons.[12][22][23][24] He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA activity in the UK.[12] When the Archbishop of New York embraced King at the city's St. Patrick's Day Parade, the Daily Mail "dedicated an entire editorial to the affair and called it the 'handshake of shame.'"[19]
In 1993, King lobbied for Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to be a guest at the inauguration of President Bill Clinton.[19] In 2000, he called then-presidential candidate George W. Bush a tool of "anti-Catholic bigoted forces," after Bush visited Bob Jones University in South Carolina, "an institution that is notorious in Ireland for awarding an honorary doctorate to Northern Ireland's tempestuous Protestant leader, Ian Paisley."[12]
He stopped supporting the IRA after being offended by Irish public opposition to the invasion of Iraq, labelling it as begrudgery rather than suspicion of and opposition to the war.[12]
In 2008, King spoke in defense of bail for a fugitive IRA member, Pól Brennan, who had escaped from prison in the UK and been detained in Texas 15 years later. The IRA member, who had broken out of prison during the Maze Prison escape and entered America illegally,[25] was being held without bail after his work permit expired; King said: "My experience dealing with (Irish) republicans is that they don't jump bail in this country. They honor their commitments."[26]


There you go. Even the sanitized wikipedia includes this stuff.

SDW, try a little experiment here: Replace the phrase "IRA" for "al Qaeda". Then replace the phrase "Peter King R-NY" with, say, a fictitious Muslim congressman named "Salim Mohammed D-XY".

We have a major terrorist enabler working in Congress, and a blind eye is being turned. What's new? Oh, lest we forget, the IRA are (nominally) "Christian"... ie Roman Catholic. Perhaps, in the light of decades of anti-semitic indoctrination of the US public against the world's Arab and Muslim communities, it is politically too incorrect to associate the terms "terrorist" and "Catholic". (Or "terrorist and Christian", or terrorist and anything else except the M word).

Probably enough said.

On the evidence, fair enough. As I said, I don't know that much about him. However, I will say that I don't think this has much to do with the Islamic terror threat. In fact, replacing "IRA" with al-Qaeda is wholly inappropriate. The last time I checked, the IRA was not bent on destroying Western civilization. The IRA doesn't have sleeper cells waiting to strike within the U.S. I'm not condoning IRA tactics or even sympathetic to their cause. I simply don't see the connection with radical Islam. It's a wholly different threat. Like him or not, King is concerned about radicalization of U.S Muslims.

You know, it's just occurred to me: There is really no point to this thread whatsoever other than bashing and slandering King. That's fine with me as I have no connection to him. That said, I do take issue with you attacking and invalidating the issue he's investigating, which is a serious one. Don't dismiss radical Islamists in the U.S. because you think this guy's a dirt bag. And certainly don't sink into the land of absurdity by claiming the IRA is similar or equal to AQ. It just sounds ridiculous.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #12 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

On the evidence, fair enough. As I said, I don't know that much about him. However, I will say that I don't think this has much to do with the Islamic terror threat. In fact, replacing "IRA" with al-Qaeda is wholly inappropriate.

The IRA's campaign in the UK (and Europe) consisting of bombings, shootings, kneecappings, tarring and feathering, kidnappings, rapings, muggings, beatings and more, on a daily basis. The deaths inflicted by that terrorist group in the UK, paid for by King and his cronies in one province in the UK, if translated proportionally in the US, would represent over 300,000 people dead. Yes, the IRA was a "bona fide" terror group which attacked soft targets on a DAILY BASIS.

Al Qaeda comes nowhere near that.

Quote:
The last time I checked, the IRA was not bent on destroying Western civilization.

Neither is the world's Muslim community. However, you would prefer to believe the Islamophobic propaganda emanating from DC, presumably because you'r comfortable with that.


Quote:
The IRA doesn't have sleeper cells waiting to strike within the U.S.

Of course they don't, or didn't. They were supported and funded BY US groups (amongst others). Where is your PROOF that Muslim sleeper cells are nascent in the US... apart from what the gang of liars, thugs and hatemongers that comprised the most senior components of the Bush Administration claimed, with the aim of terrorizing the US population with that claim?

Quote:
I'm not condoning IRA tactics or even sympathetic to their cause.

Yeah, yeah. If you're not with us, then you're against us. If you support KIng, then you are supporting terror. Period.

Quote:
I simply don't see the connection with radical Islam.

Both are to do with the radicalization of religion. However, in the eyes of the US powers that be, some terrorists are fine n dandy, and others are to be squashed.

Quote:
It's a wholly different threat. Like him or not, King is concerned about radicalization of U.S Muslims.

That's King's excuse. Listen to what the man says, and as far as he (and many on DC on all sides of the political fence) are concerned, *ALL* Muslims are targets.

Quote:
You know, it's just occurred to me: There is really no point to this thread whatsoever other than bashing and slandering King. That's fine with me as I have no connection to him. That said, I do take issue with you attacking and invalidating the issue he's investigating, which is a serious one. Don't dismiss radical Islamists in the U.S. because you think this guy's a dirt bag. And certainly don't sink into the land of absurdity by claiming the IRA is similar or equal to AQ. It just sounds ridiculous.

As I said... King is a Republican. If he was from a different political stripe, you would be blowing fuses.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The IRA's campaign in the UK (and Europe) consisting of bombings, shootings, kneecappings, tarring and feathering, kidnappings, rapings, muggings, beatings and more, on a daily basis. The deaths inflicted by that terrorist group in the UK, paid for by King and his cronies in one province in the UK, if translated proportionally in the US, would represent over 300,000 people dead. Yes, the IRA was a "bona fide" terror group which attacked soft targets on a DAILY BASIS.

Al Qaeda comes nowhere near that.

WTF? Why this obsession with comparing the two? This isn't a contest, sammi.

Quote:



Neither is the world's Muslim community. However, you would prefer to believe the Islamophobic propaganda emanating from DC, presumably because you'r comfortable with that.

Again..WTF? When did anyone claim the "world's Muslim community" was a threat? RADICAL ISLAM is. That's what is being investigated. Is this thing on?

Quote:




Of course they don't, or didn't. They were supported and funded BY US groups (amongst others). Where is your PROOF that Muslim sleeper cells are nascent in the US... apart from what the gang of liars, thugs and hatemongers that comprised the most senior components of the Bush Administration claimed, with the aim of terrorizing the US population with that claim?

I knew Bush had to come into this. And really...so now we're getting into "proving" sleeper cells exist? sammi, you either believe radical Muslims are a threat or you don't. You clearly believe it's a figment of our collective imagination. Fine. I'm not getting into that pissing contest with you.

Quote:


Yeah, yeah. If you're not with us, then you're against us. If you support KIng, then you are supporting terror. Period.

Another WTF moment. When did I indicate support for King?

Quote:


Both are to do with the radicalization of religion. However, in the eyes of the US powers that be, some terrorists are fine n dandy, and others are to be squashed.

OK..let me break this down for you. One terrorist group was bad. It killed a a lot of people for a particular cause. The other terrorist group is REALLY bad. It, too, has killed a lot of people...particularly 3,000 people 10 years ago. In addition, it wants to destroy the U.S as we know it. It wants to kill as many Americans as possible. It recruits in many countries. Perhaps THAT is why the U.S. Government is concerned about it?

Quote:

That's King's excuse. Listen to what the man says, and as far as he (and many on DC on all sides of the political fence) are concerned, *ALL* Muslims are targets.

I have listened. I have heard NOTHING about "all" Muslims. This has not even been implied. We only hear that from YOUR side of the issue.

Quote:

As I said... King is a Republican. If he was from a different political stripe, you would be blowing fuses.


Uh..over what? I support people who I think are right on the issues. You're honestly pulling that crap with me? You honestly think I'd be attacking a Democrat with King's views on terrorism? Whatever...think what you'd like.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Again..WTF? When did anyone claim the "world's Muslim community" was a threat? RADICAL ISLAM is. That's what is being investigated. Is this thing on?

Read, and digest.
King has claimed that "talking about Muslims as terrorists is a reality that Americans need to face, even if it makes them uncomfortable".

KIng has also stated baldly that "there are too many mosques in this country". King claimed today in the hearings that he was "misquoted", and he meant to say that "there were too many mosques that didn't cooperate with law enforcement". However: Watch the video in the link above: King lied. In 2007, he actually *DID* utter the "too many mosques" statement in 2007. Caught redhanded. How many mosques is too many for King? Probably one. Lets ask King how many churches are too many? How many synagogues, or Buddhist temples are "too many"?

To quote from the same article: "Earlier, King had said in an interview with radio and television host Sean Hannity that 85 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by extremist leadership,.Hmm.. 85% is a huge majority, basically assuming that almost "all Muslims were "associated with terrorists". From where does he get this "information"? MEMRI?

Not only that, but King also asserts that "all terrorists are Muslims". He refuses to recognize terrorist acts, or the relevance of terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims. King also has stated that Muslims are not Americans when it comes to war.

King's mindset is so obvious, it should be apparent to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

Quote:
I knew Bush had to come into this. And really...so now we're getting into "proving" sleeper cells exist? sammi, you either believe radical Muslims are a threat or you don't. You clearly believe it's a figment of our collective imagination. Fine. I'm not getting into that pissing contest with you.

You started talking about "sleeper cells". Where did you get this information from? What is your *evidence*?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #15 of 21
It's so wrong to have King in this position, I wonder if he's being set up in some way.

I found this interesting-

"It happens to be an awkward fact that just last month, a University of North Carolina terrorism expert, Charles Kurzman, reported a drop in attempted or actual terrorist activity by American Muslims - 47 perpetrators and suspects in 2009, 20 in 2010. This does not mean that there is no threat, but, when measured against ordinary violent crime, it is slight. In fact, the threat from non-Muslims is much greater, encompassing not only your run-of-the-mill murderers but about 20 domestic terrorist plots, including one in which a plane was flown into an IRS building in Austin...

The findings of the Kurzman study just get more and more awkward. It turns out that in exposing alleged terrorist plots, "the largest single source of initial information (48 of 120 cases) involved tips from the Muslim American community." Not only does this contradict King's implicit charge that the American Muslim community is one vast terrorism enabler, but it suggests that an outcome of his hearings will be the further alienation of this community - and less cooperation with the authorities."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Read, and digest.
King has claimed that "talking about Muslims as terrorists is a reality that Americans need to face, even if it makes them uncomfortable".

KIng has also stated baldly that "there are too many mosques in this country". King claimed today in the hearings that he was "misquoted", and he meant to say that "there were too many mosques that didn't cooperate with law enforcement". However: Watch the video in the link above: King lied. In 2007, he actually *DID* utter the "too many mosques" statement in 2007. Caught redhanded. How many mosques is too many for King? Probably one. Lets ask King how many churches are too many? How many synagogues, or Buddhist temples are "too many"?

To quote from the same article: "Earlier, King had said in an interview with radio and television host Sean Hannity that 85 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by extremist leadership,.Hmm.. 85% is a huge majority, basically assuming that almost "all Muslims were "associated with terrorists". From where does he get this "information"? MEMRI?

Not only that, but King also asserts that "all terrorists are Muslims". He refuses to recognize terrorist acts, or the relevance of terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims. King also has stated that Muslims are not Americans when it comes to war.

King's mindset is so obvious, it should be apparent to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.



You started talking about "sleeper cells". Where did you get this information from? What is your *evidence*?


Again...feel free to hate King. I really don't care. I still think the issue is serious. All terrorists may not be Muslims, but a good portion of terrorism is committed by radical Islamists. Investigating how people become radicalized within this country is a worthy issue. If you want to argue that someone other than King should be leading the effort, that's fine. He's certainly made some over-the-top statements to say the least.

Oh, and by the way, while I appreciate the politico links, Think Progress doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. Funny though, while you're assailing others for suiting up in their red and blue jerseys, you're doing the same thing by using links from obviously biased sources.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Again...feel free to hate King. I really don't care.

Wait a minute. I don't know the man, so how can I hate *him*? However, as the chief funder of one of the most active and deadly terror gangs in modern history, I find it *extraordinary* that he can end up in the position of chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. Or, perhaps in these Orwellian times of inverted sensibilities, it comes as no surprise?

Quote:
I still think the issue is serious. All terrorists may not be Muslims,

Oh my. We're getting somewhere. Woop de frikkin' doo! Even on CNN....

Quote:
but a good portion of terrorism is committed by radical Islamists.

6%. A good portion.

Or even less than that... 0.4% and if you read this article, you might find comfort in the study that indicates left wing terrorist activity vastly outweighs right wing terrorist activity... by some 25:1.

Quote:
Investigating how people become radicalized within this country is a worthy issue.

Hang on.... what do you mean by "radicalized? Lots of people become radicalized to a cause.... Lets not trash another perfectly useful word in the English language.

Quote:
If you want to argue that someone other than King should be leading the effort, that's fine.

Terrorists should not be in Congress. Agree?

Quote:
He's certainly made some over-the-top statements to say the least.

For sure. And his efforts killed a lot of innocent civilians.

Quote:
Oh, and by the way, while I appreciate the politico links, Think Progress doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. Funny though, while you're assailing others for suiting up in their red and blue jerseys, you're doing the same thing by using links from obviously biased sources.

I quote links regardless of political affiliation. Go back through my posts and you find links from all persuasions, from websites which promote anything between socialism (say, Mother Jones) and fascism (say Fox news), and all points between.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Wait a minute. I don't know the man, so how can I hate *him*? However, as the chief funder of one of the most active and deadly terror gangs in modern history, I find it *extraordinary* that he can end up in the position of chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. Or, perhaps in these Orwellian times of inverted sensibilities, it comes as no surprise?

I think that's quite exaggerated, but I see the point.

Quote:


Oh my. We're getting somewhere. Woop de frikkin' doo! Even on CNN....



6%. A good portion.

Or even less than that... 0.4% and if you read this article, you might find comfort in the study that indicates left wing terrorist activity vastly outweighs right wing terrorist activity... by some 25:1.

Oh COME on. I'm not getting into this with you. You're going to try to argue this down to percentages? sammi....let me ask you: Is radical Muslim terrorism a serious problem? Is radical Islam's goal to destroy the West...particularly America? Straight answers please.

Quote:



Hang on.... what do you mean by "radicalized? Lots of people become radicalized to a cause.... Lets not trash another perfectly useful word in the English language.

Not playing semantics with you. You know perfectly well what it means.

Quote:

Terrorists should not be in Congress. Agree?

Of course. Now, how is King anymore a terrorist than Barack Obama? Think about that for a second.

Quote:
For sure. And his efforts killed a lot of innocent civilians.

I quote links regardless of political affiliation. Go back through my posts and you find links from all persuasions, from websites which promote anything between socialism (say, Mother Jones) and fascism (say Fox news), and all points between.

...fascism (say Fox news).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh COME on. I'm not getting into this with you. You're going to try to argue this down to percentages? sammi....let me ask you: Is radical Muslim terrorism a serious problem? Is radical Islam's goal to destroy the West...particularly America? Straight answers please.

"Destroy the West". The FBI's statistics re. "radicalized" Islam in the US don't support that paranoid assertion. Europe's law enforcement stats don't agree either. If a radicalized element within Islam "wants to destroy the West", they are either (a) lazy, (b) terminally ineffectual (c) unmotivated (d) unable (e) wild fantasies (f) the projection of anger by those who may have lost loved ones via US bombings... (everyone can relate to grief being accompanied by anger). It's all bark, no bite.. and in the perpetual absence of a genuine "bite", an occasional "attempt" at a "bite" is manufactured and promoted by the authorities/media, presumably to maintain the perceived "justification" for going after these people, both at home and abroad. Cue Abdul Mutallab etc.

According to whichever survey one acknowledges, there are between 3 and 6 million US citizens who are Muslim. According to King, 80%+ of US mosques are being radicalized, "all Muslims should be suspected as being terrorists"... and "all terrorist acts are caused by Muslims". All bogus claims. Now, imagine the millions of easy, low security opportunities available to these millions of terrorists to "Destroy the West". Perhaps these hordes of radicalized Muslims should be reading "Terrorism for Dummies". Perhaps they should do some research into Rep. King's methods of funding and enabling terrorism in the UK and Europe....

The current strife in the M.E. is about their people doing *now*, after 1000 years of foreign domination, abuse, meddling and pillage, what our people did in 1776, after centuries of similar abuse, at the hands of England.

A far more likely scenario, especially bearing *facts* and *stated aims* in mind (which of course won't sit very comfortably with you) would be: "The West Wants to Destroy Islam". In the last 10 years, Western casualties at the hands of Muslims is exceeded by the inverse by a factor of thousands... even if one includes the "Muslims did 9/11" conspiracy theory.

Quote:
Of course. Now, how is King anymore a terrorist than Barack Obama? Think about that for a second.

One second. That's all it deserved. I am about as much a fan as Obama as I am of Cheney. (At least, with the latter, he was up front, and we knew where we stood).

So, please do inform the world about Obama's ties to international terrorism.. (apart from his authorization of the indiscriminately lobbing of drones at innocent Pakistani civilians). If you know something about B.O. that we don't, lets hear it!

Quote:
...fascism (say Fox news).

wandering off topic here...

Actually, although Fox does promotes corporatism (which is synonymous to fascism) I suggest you read the mainstream Venezuelan media's uncensored daily commentaries about Hugo Chavez. Fox News on steroids! You'd love it!
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

"Destroy the West". The FBI's statistics re. "radicalized" Islam in the US don't support that paranoid assertion. Europe's law enforcement stats don't agree either. If a radicalized element within Islam "wants to destroy the West", they are either (a) lazy, (b) terminally ineffectual (c) unmotivated (d) unable (e) wild fantasies (f) the projection of anger by those who may have lost loved ones via US bombings... (everyone can relate to grief being accompanied by anger). It's all bark, no bite.. and in the perpetual absence of a genuine "bite", an occasional "attempt" at a "bite" is manufactured and promoted by the authorities/media, presumably to maintain the perceived "justification" for going after these people, both at home and abroad. Cue Abdul Mutallab etc.

According to whichever survey one acknowledges, there are between 3 and 6 million US citizens who are Muslim. According to King, 80%+ of US mosques are being radicalized, "all Muslims should be suspected as being terrorists"... and "all terrorist acts are caused by Muslims". All bogus claims. Now, imagine the millions of easy, low security opportunities available to these millions of terrorists to "Destroy the West". Perhaps these hordes of radicalized Muslims should be reading "Terrorism for Dummies". Perhaps they should do some research into Rep. King's methods of funding and enabling terrorism in the UK and Europe....

The current strife in the M.E. is about their people doing *now*, after 1000 years of foreign domination, abuse, meddling and pillage, what our people did in 1776, after centuries of similar abuse, at the hands of England.

A far more likely scenario, especially bearing *facts* and *stated aims* in mind (which of course won't sit very comfortably with you) would be: "The West Wants to Destroy Islam". In the last 10 years, Western casualties at the hands of Muslims is exceeded by the inverse by a factor of thousands... even if one includes the "Muslims did 9/11" conspiracy theory.


One second. That's all it deserved. I am about as much a fan as Obama as I am of Cheney. (At least, with the latter, he was up front, and we knew where we stood).

So, please do inform the world about Obama's ties to international terrorism.. (apart from his authorization of the indiscriminately lobbing of drones at innocent Pakistani civilians). If you know something about B.O. that we don't, lets hear it!



wandering off topic here...

Actually, although Fox does promotes corporatism (which is synonymous to fascism) I suggest you read the mainstream Venezuelan media's uncensored daily commentaries about Hugo Chavez. Fox News on steroids! You'd love it!

You are positively delusional.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You are positively delusional.

And whenever you have no argument, out come the ad hominems, as predictable as the sunset.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Rep. Peter King, Duplicitosaurus Rex.