King explains away the difference with a precision one might classify as "Clinton-esque", if such a distinction meant anything anymore. Here is some of that explanation: "But King sees no parallel between the IRA and violent Islamist extremism, which he describes as a foreign enemy or a foreign-directed enemy. His preferred comparison for the IRA is with the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela; the IRA, no less than the ANC's military wing, was fighting for community rights and freedom, he says. "I [wanted] a peace agreement, a working agreement, where the nationalist community would feel their rights would be respected," King said in an interview at his Capitol Hill office. "I felt that the IRA, in the context of Irish history, and Sinn Fein were a legitimate force that had to be recognized and you wouldn't have peace without them"
Whether or not Islamic extremism is a "foreign enemy" or a "foreign directed enemy" is interesting, but not relevant--especially if you were in the British Army in Ulster, or were part of the Protestant community there. What THEY saw was terrorism, flat out. I'm sure the British and the Ulster Irishmen saw PLENTY of foreign influence in the IRA (see connections to other worldwide terror organizations AND financing from the Irish-American community). As a matter of fact, I was present as a boy of six or seven in a Long Island basement where the hat was passed to SUPPORT the IRA.
Should the Congress look into the radicalization of American Muslims as a threat to national security? Yes. Should Peter King lead that inquiry? No. He was a vocal supporter of a bloody terror organization and he does not have the moral standing to preside.
Posts
