You cannot make this stuff up..King defends past IRA support, terror hearings

[Peacetrain]

King defends past IRA support, terror hearings...

WASHINGTON – Rep. Peter King, who will hold hearings this week on Islamic radicalism, is defending his support in the 1980s and 1990s of the Irish Republican Army's political wing.

The New York Republican says the IRA and al-Qaida are very different — the IRA was a narrowly focused homegrown movement while al-Qaida has attacked the U.S. and other countries. King said in an interview Tuesday he was right to advocate that the IRA be brought into peace negotiations to stop the violence.

King will preside over Thursday's congressional hearing, which has sparked protests on grounds it unfairly targets Muslims. King says he believes the Muslim community should do more to renounce al-Qaida and work with law enforcement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/ap_o...r_hearings

[NJMaverick]

Typical right wing hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do

[Peacetrain]

(03-08-2011 01:00 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  Typical right wing hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do

The hypocrisy is jaw dropping.. and they can't seem to help themselves..they just keep doing it..

[NJMaverick]

(03-08-2011 01:11 PM)Lucy in the Sky Wrote:  

(03-08-2011 01:00 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  Typical right wing hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do

The hypocrisy is jaw dropping.. and they can't seem to help themselves..they just keep doing it..

I think it's ingrained in their self serving ideology. When you have an ideology which ir pretty much designed to justify self centered behavior, hypocrisy would seem to be a natural byproduct.

[Cha]

NYT Editorial on "Peter King's Obsession"

"Not much spreads fear and bigotry faster than a public official intent on playing the politics of division. On Thursday, Representative Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is scheduled to open a series of hearings that seem designed to stoke fear against American Muslims. His refusal to tone down the provocation despite widespread opposition suggests that he is far more interested in exploiting ethnic misunderstanding than in trying to heal it.
Mr. King, a Republican whose district is centered in Nassau County on Long Island, says the hearings will examine the supposed radicalization of American Muslims. Al Qaeda is aggressively recruiting Muslims in this country, he says. He wants to investigate the terror group’s methods and what he claims is the eagerness of many young American Muslims to embrace it.

Notice that the hearing is solely about Muslims. It might be perfectly legitimate for the Homeland Security Committee to investigate violent radicalism in America among a wide variety of groups, but that doesn’t seem to be Mr. King’s real interest."

Read More..
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinio....html?_r=2

[There Is No Spoon]

He ought to be put in jail for life for stirring up hatred like this - and being a flipping massive hypocrite in the process.

[Dimwitted Fool]

It's all about the 7-11s.

Used to be they were all owned by Indians, but just as he was getting used to the sandals and saris it's Afghanis and Pakistanis in them now and he just can't handle it.

Somewhere, somehow, there's a 7-11 in King's past that's behind all this.

[Peadar O Suileabhain]

King is a hypocrite, but his assessment of the British misrule in Ireland was entirely accurate. Don't let your dislike for King lead you into defending the State Department's longtime support for neo-fascist Protestant paramilitaries and their British enablers. Don't let King's dickishness blind you to the long trail of human rights abuses carried out against Irish Catholics in the six counties.

A lot of lefties have a bias against American Catholics and transfer that to the situation in Ireland, figuring that the country that gave us Shakespeare, Monty Python, and the Beatles could NEVER stoop to the same level as Pinochet or Marcos.

[Peadar O Suileabhain]

(03-08-2011 12:55 PM)Lucy in the Sky Wrote:  King said in an interview Tuesday he was right to advocate that the IRA be brought into peace negotiations to stop the violence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/ap_o...r_hearings

Actually, on that count, he is correct. The IRA has abided by the terms of the GFA ceasefire, turned over its weapons caches, and participated constructively in the political reforms that are underway. The obstructionism has been almost exclusively on the Protestant side of the ledger.

Oh, and for the record, since you quote a Beatles song, you should know that John Lennon is actually of Irish, not English, descent, and was a vocal supporter of Irish republicanism throughout his life.

[Peacetrain]

(03-08-2011 03:17 PM)Peadar O Suileabhain Wrote:  

(03-08-2011 12:55 PM)Lucy in the Sky Wrote:  King said in an interview Tuesday he was right to advocate that the IRA be brought into peace negotiations to stop the violence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/ap_o...r_hearings

Actually, on that count, he is correct. The IRA has abided by the terms of the GFA ceasefire, turned over its weapons caches, and participated constructively in the political reforms that are underway. The obstructionism has been almost exclusively on the Protestant side of the ledger.

Oh, and for the record, since you quote a Beatles song, you should know that John Lennon is actually of Irish, not English, descent, and was a vocal supporter of Irish republicanism throughout his life.

Oh, and for the record, since you quote a Beatles song, you should know that John Lennon is actually of Irish, not English, descent, and was a vocal supporter of Irish republicanism throughout his life.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China..

Likewise...one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.. never good to try and go down that road.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

First off, I am a Catholic and King's hypocrisy comes from his own words, not the actual troubles. He says that if civilians were killed, he wouldn't blame the IRA. Civilians. Not soldiers, not government officials...civilians.


He says the difference is that Al Qaeda attacked the US and his loyalty is here, not there. IOW, it is ok to support terrorists targeting civilians, as long as those civilians aren't american. Wtf? The real reason is that his grandfather was in the IRA and so he made an effort to see the humanity...the other side...he saw that while SOME IRA members targeted civilians, not all did and certainly not every Irishman was in the IRA. But since he isn't muslim, he doesn't give a shit and every muslim must be terroristy.

[HamdenRice]

(03-09-2011 12:19 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  The real reason is that his grandfather was in the IRA and so he made an effort to see the humanity...the other side...he saw that while SOME IRA members targeted civilians, not all did and certainly not every Irishman was in the IRA. But since he isn't muslim, he doesn't give a shit and every muslim must be terroristy.

That's certainly a big part of it. So is the entire intellectual conundrum that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The IRA long got a pass in NY and Boston and other parts of the northeast, both because there was a huge Irish-American Catholic voting block that supported them, and because the Irish of Northern Ireland had many legitimate grievances against the British occupation and Protestant quasi-fascist political system -- grievances so severe that many people concluded that armed struggle was justified.

At the same time, there were many American politicians who supported the African National Congress of South Africa, even though during the 80s it was officially classified a terrorist organization.
[/i][/b]
Also, his claim that the IRA was only engaged in intra-Irish violence is bogus. Not only did the IRA carry out attacks against civilian targets in England, proper, but during its most radical years, it became a sort of "armed struggle university" for many groups around the world engaging in violence in their own non-Irish countries.

It all depended on whether you could relate to the claims for the legitimacy of "armed struggle."

But frankly, I don't even want to go there. There's an incredibly insulting subtext to well meaning people bringing up King's support of IRA armed struggle/terrorism in the context of his investigations of Muslim and their mosques.

It's this: There is no evidence of widespread participation by American Muslims in terrorism, justified or otherwise, in the first place.

So there is no parallel between what King is doing and his support for the IRA. This would only make sense if he were investigating legitmate claims that American Muslims were supporting an armed struggle somewhere. This might have been true before 9/11 when some were supporting Palestinian groups that ever so tangentially were connected to Hamas, but it certainly isn't true now.

[There Is No Spoon]

(03-09-2011 12:53 PM)HamdenRice Wrote:  But frankly, I don't even want to go there. There's an incredibly insulting subtext to well meaning people bringing up King's support of IRA armed struggle/terrorism in the context of his investigations of Muslim and their mosques.

It's this: There is no evidence of widespread participation by American Muslims in terrorism, justified or otherwise, in the first place.

So there is no parallel between what King is doing and his support for the IRA. This would only make sense if he were investigating legitimate claims that American Muslims were supporting an armed struggle somewhere. This might have been true before 9/11 when some were supporting Palestinian groups that ever so tangentially were connected to Hamas, but it certainly isn't true now.

Excellent point.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

(03-09-2011 12:53 PM)HamdenRice Wrote:  

(03-09-2011 12:19 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  The real reason is that his grandfather was in the IRA and so he made an effort to see the humanity...the other side...he saw that while SOME IRA members targeted civilians, not all did and certainly not every Irishman was in the IRA. But since he isn't muslim, he doesn't give a shit and every muslim must be terroristy.

That's certainly a big part of it. So is the entire intellectual conundrum that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The IRA long got a pass in NY and Boston and other parts of the northeast, both because there was a huge Irish-American Catholic voting block that supported them, and because the Irish of Northern Ireland had many legitimate grievances against the British occupation and Protestant quasi-fascist political system -- grievances so severe that many people concluded that armed struggle was justified.

At the same time, there were many American politicians who supported the African National Congress of South Africa, even though during the 80s it was officially classified a terrorist organization.
[/i][/b]
Also, his claim that the IRA was only engaged in intra-Irish violence is bogus. Not only did the IRA carry out attacks against civilian targets in England, proper, but during its most radical years, it became a sort of "armed struggle university" for many groups around the world engaging in violence in their own non-Irish countries.

It all depended on whether you could relate to the claims for the legitimacy of "armed struggle."

But frankly, I don't even want to go there. There's an incredibly insulting subtext to well meaning people bringing up King's support of IRA armed struggle/terrorism in the context of his investigations of Muslim and their mosques.

It's this: There is no evidence of widespread participation by American Muslims in terrorism, justified or otherwise, in the first place.

So there is no parallel between what King is doing and his support for the IRA. This would only make sense if he were investigating legitmate claims that American Muslims were supporting an armed struggle somewhere. This might have been true before 9/11 when some were supporting Palestinian groups that ever so tangentially were connected to Hamas, but it certainly isn't true now.

Hey Hammy !

Good to see you again

good point!

[HamdenRice]

(03-09-2011 09:23 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  Hey Hammy !

Good to see you again

good point!

Good to see you too!

[Peadar O Suileabhain]

(03-09-2011 12:19 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  First off, I am a Catholic and King's hypocrisy comes from his own words, not the actual troubles. He says that if civilians were killed, he wouldn't blame the IRA. Civilians. Not soldiers, not government officials...civilians.


He says the difference is that Al Qaeda attacked the US and his loyalty is here, not there. IOW, it is ok to support terrorists targeting civilians, as long as those civilians aren't american. Wtf? The real reason is that his grandfather was in the IRA and so he made an effort to see the humanity...the other side...he saw that while SOME IRA members targeted civilians, not all did and certainly not every Irishman was in the IRA. But since he isn't muslim, he doesn't give a shit and every muslim must be terroristy.

This is the real takeaway. The problem is King's hypocrisy, not his support for Irish republicanism. Unfortunately, some people are using it as an excuse to paint Irish Catholics as ogres, and King plays right into their hands.

[KonaKane]

While I cannot stand King, I have to honest with you homies here and say I have long been, and remain, a supporter of the IRA. Like Peadar said, what the British government has done to the Irish over centuries is a disgrace and I do not begrudge any people the right to arm up and defend themselves or toss out invaders/usurpers.

Tiocfaidh ár lá.

[jaxx]

I thought this was interesting.........

*Pete King's hearings this week on radicalization inside the Muslim community have triggered months of advance criticism from skeptics who often compare the hearings to Joe McCarthy's anti-Communist witch hunts, and a reader yesterday turned up an interesting historical note on that point: King actually worked with McCarthy counsel Roy Cohn when he was a young lawyer.

"It was amazing to me the network of contacts he had," King told the AP in 1986, when he was Nassau County Comptroller. "He seemed to have access anywhere -- FBI agents, prominent senators, and the State Department. There seemed to be nobody he didn't know."

King confimed to me just now that he worked with Cohn for about 18 months at the firm Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, where Cohn maintained an extremely aggressive private practice. King didn't have much to say about Cohn, but he dismissed the historical reference.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0...nnedy.html