August 2, 2010

Juan Williams gets it right on the Ground Zero mosque.

And it's easy to get this one right, I think:
During Fox News Sunday's online "Panel Plus" segment, Juan Williams made the case against building the 13-story Islamic center a couple blocks from Ground Zero. Although the imam who owns the land has a right to do what he wants with his own property, Williams said, as a matter of decency the imam shouldn't build the mosque.

Williams said that the proposed mosque and the imam's actions are "a thumb in the eye to so many people who lost their lives and went through the trauma there. It's not promoting dialogue or understanding. In fact, it's polarizing. So it's not achieving his stated goal. And for that reason, I just think he's wrong to do it."
It's unfortunate that so many people confuse the right to do something — which I presume here — and whether it's a good idea to do it. Many — perhaps most — of the bad things people do are not illegal. You can say someone has a legal right to do something — and even enthusiastically support that right — and still tell them that what they are doing is horribly wrong.

(Note: That's what I would say about abortion, too.)

175 comments:

Scott said...

It's so unfortunate that people say they want dialog and then do polarizing things.

Are they liars? Are they merely tone-deaf? Do they lack self-awareness?

wv: surair

DADvocate said...

Just the point my attorney sister made once. Just because it's your right doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

PatCA said...

I would agree with you on both counts. Just had this discussion the other night: yes, they have the right to build the mosque (in a pure property rights sense cf. Kelo) but should they.

And I am pro-choice too but think the millions of babies aborted for convenience reasons--even pro-choicers admit this--is horrible.

DADvocate said...

Scott - They're liars. They don't want dialogue they want their way, period.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HDHouse said...

It would be better proof of who we are if we said go ahead than if we blocked this.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should do it.

Hybrids of human and insect DNA is possible. Not a good idea IMO.

Also...What DAD says. They don't want dialog. They want to stick it in our faces and destroy America.

k*thy said...

yes, they have the right to build the mosque (in a pure property rights sense cf. Kelo) but should they.

Or should we let them? Believing, for a second, that this group are on the up-and-up, at what point do we live with our fears, start to heal and move on? I'm really asking, as I'm not sure there's a real right answer here.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It would be better proof of who we are if we said go ahead than if we blocked this

You are right. We should let them build it.....then blow it up.

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

13 Stories? For an alleged house of worship?

EnigmatiCore said...

It would be better proof of who we are if we said go ahead than if we blocked this.

This is a very true statement, even if you mean it in a completely different way than I do.

A.W. said...

i think the better argument is this. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar will see this as a sign of their final victory. Fair or not, that is how they will see it. we have a compelling interest in preventing that.

i mean you could dig into their ties to terrorism, but that is not necessary. That one issue does it.

SMGalbraith said...

You are right. We should let them build it.....then blow it up.

Excuse me, who is this "we"?

And if you do, I hope they lock you up for life.

I'll await the "You're with the terrorists!!" or "If we don't kill them, they'll kill us" reply.

(Yes, I know it's best to ignore most ridiculous comments; but at some point a response is needed.)

Andy R. said...

Was it wrong for black people to begin drinking from water fountains in the south after the civil rights movement if that would offend the racist white people that lived there?

JAL said...

I think several commenters in the mosque blogpost below said the same thing.

But since it is about Sharia law, really, (read the quotes I found last night down there) the-cross-cultural-bridge-building imam who is hiding out in Malaysia or someplace in the hinterlands, doesn't give a rat's ass.

He will have classical miusic concerts in his great hall as a sop to the Bloombergs, and have visiting Muslim scholars on alternate nights discussing how to implement Sharia law in a transient dhimmi-ocracy.

Read it yourself.

Nice work, oh tolerant afraid to offend Community Organizers in NYC.

The imam's "tin ear" should be a clue.

ricpic said...

Bloomberg is pushing hard for this stupidity. What goes on in his head escapes me.

Almost Ali said...

We're living in an era of mass political insanity. More, I predict the sidewalks in front of the Ground Zero mosque will become the terrorist's Rock of Fame, their names emblazoned in the cement. Where each year hundreds of thousands of Muslims will pilgrimage to honor their most esteemed heroes, the perpetrators of 9/11.

Daniel said...

See, I think many people are actually confusing the phrase, "It's not promoting dialogue or understanding," with "I'm not promoting dialogue or understanding."

And it's funny that a lot of those people don't even consider New York to be part of "real America" anyway, except when they have a political axe to grind.

bagoh20 said...

Just because you CAN let someone do something wrong, doesn't mean you should.

JAL said...

@ K*thy at what point do we live with our fears, start to heal and move on?

Honey, the war ain't over.

At what point did the Jews in Europe learn to live with their fears and "move on?"

(And don't bother, C4, no one's going to read you anyhow.)

When should Churchill have said -- "[sigh] -- it is better to live with our fear of what being owned by Nazi Germany will be like and move on ...."

Really.

DADvocate said...

Was it wrong for black people to begin drinking from water fountains in the south after the civil rights movement if that would offend the racist white people that lived there?

Was there some incident where blacks blew up a building of several thousand whites that we didn't hear of? (Closer to the opposite.) Or are you just an idiot trying to make a parallel where none exists?

garage mahal said...

We NEED to let them build it. That way there is less of a chance that crazy muslims will blow something up there in the future.

*ducks*

Daniel said...

At what point did the Jews in Europe learn to live with their fears and "move on?"

We've been doing it for 3000 years dude.

Rafique Tucker said...

Honey, the war ain't over.

You do realize that we aren't at war with Islam, correct? That our struggle is against Islamism, Islamist extremism, jihadism, Al-qaeda, etc.?

Unless one refuses to see the distinction between mainsteam Islam, and terrorism, that Nazi analogy doesn't work.

AllenS said...

I call it the shit or get off the pot strategy.

Either constitutionally outlaw the practice of Islam in America or let them build it.

*refuses to duck*

Andy R. said...

Was there some incident where blacks blew up a building of several thousand whites that we didn't hear of?

Do you think the people building the community center in New York are the same ones that blew up the World Trade Center?

Should there be a buffer zone where no churches should be built around planned parenthood clinics that have been the site of christian-inspired violence?

Kirk Parker said...

And let's not forget the significance of the name here. If I started a group ostensibly dedicated to "dialog and understanding", and named it the Richard I Society, would anybody think I was actually interested in dialog and understanding?

Salamandyr said...

Each time I hear of this scheme, building this religious center in that place, I think "why would you want to do such a hateful thing?" I believe I know why, but I would prefer it be different.

Old Dad said...

In the spirit of treasured American diversity and entrepreneurship, should the Cordoba Mosque be built, I suggest that immediately adjacent, the following should also be built: a military recruiting center, a Victoria Secret outlet mall, a kosher deli, a Holocaust museum,an Israeli Consulate, A Chistian Rock radio station, and the world's largest neon billboard featuring "Pork, the other white meat."

Darcy said...

Juan Williams and Sarah Palin before him are absolutely right.

AllenS said...

Very good, Old Dad.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Do you think the people building the community center in New York are the same ones that blew up the World Trade Center?

No because those poeple are dead. However, for anyone with a passing knowledge of history, the name Cordoba Initiative should give one pause as to whose side they're on.

I'm all for tolerance but not when it's practiced on such a one sided basis.

Pogo said...

"Do you think the people building the community center in New York are the same ones that blew up the World Trade Center?"

Yes; they are all proponents of the same evil.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You do realize that we aren't at war with Islam, correct? That our struggle is against Islamism, Islamist extremism, jihadism, Al-qaeda, etc.?

Unless one refuses to see the distinction between mainsteam Islam, and terrorism, that Nazi analogy doesn't work.


Until mainstream moderate Islamic people (if there is such a thing) disassociate themselves from the radical elements and cease supporting them and loudly and denounce the Islamic extremists......we are at war with Islam.

It is their choice. So far they have chosen the extremists.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Should there be a buffer zone where no churches should be built around planned parenthood clinics that have been the site of christian-inspired violence?

I suppose that line of reasoning would have credibility if Christians were actually erecting churches around such clinics.

DKWalser said...

Note: That's what I would say about abortion, too.

Althouse, I think we agree on the proper public policy stance regarding abortion: it should be legal, but it is almost always wrong. Where I think we disagree is with regard to the question of whether or not government should have the authority to outlaw abortion. While I think it would be stupid public policy, I think government should have the authority to regulate the availability of abortion. As with individuals, just because government has the ability to do something, it doesn't mean that thing should be done.

Andy R. said...

By the way, Metafilter, a site which I believe Ann has linked to and participated with in the past had a post about this issue with informed and intelligent commentary.


You might also appreciate the opportunity to compare the comment section on Metafilter with the one here.

holdfast said...

I believe I made that point in the other thread - that the government should not take any extra-legal steps to prevent it, but rather that private individuals should denounce it. And that it is clearly a big stick in the eye, since if they cared about dialogue or healing, they would not build it there.

On the upside, maybe they'll be too incompetent or broke to complete it, like the planned London Mosque Monstrosity from a few years ago.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You might also appreciate the opportunity to compare the comment section on Metafilter with the one here.

What I find even more fascinating is comparing how liberals tend to be so much more tolerant of Islam as a religion as opposed to say, Christianity.

Darcy said...

Nailed it, Hoosier Daddy. It's the "informed and intelligent" view!

Rafique Tucker said...

Until mainstream moderate Islamic people (if there is such a thing) disassociate themselves from the radical elements and cease supporting them and loudly and denounce the Islamic extremists......we are at war with Islam.

Two things: First, many have. From the reformers in the West, to dissident freedom fighters in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. They are out there. Should more speak out? Of course.

Secondly, is it your policy to assume all Muslims are allied with the enemy, until they sufficiently prove otherwise? That seems to be the only logical outgrowth of your statement.

Here's the thing: If there are verified, proven lonks between the Cordoba HOuse and extremism, then I'll oppose this community center being built. Until then, this all looks like reflexive fear.

Pogo said...

Andy, by your baseball cap askew alone, one can assume your gullibility.

Darcy said...

"Until then, this all looks like reflexive fear."

I don't think it's fear at all. It's disgust.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You might also appreciate the opportunity to compare the comment section on Metafilter with the one here.

Just a bit O/T but I perused the first 25 or so comments and saw a lot of f-bombs, reference to the lunatic right and the typical gratuitous f*** Palin comment so if that is what passes for intelligent, thoughful commentary, I'd say you're setting the bar a tad low ;-)

Pogo said...

"Secondly, is it your policy to assume all Muslims are allied with the enemy, until they sufficiently prove otherwise? "

It's mine, given the lack of visible Muslim opponents, and the fact that terrorism worldwide is still almost entirely a product of Islam. So yes, you have to prove your religion is not owned by these killers. That's your problem, for not having dealt with them earlier.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Rafique, as I mentioned earlier the fact they call it the Cordoba House makes me a bit wary. I'm sure that Muslims would be wary if I started an outreach center call the Richard the Lionhearted Society.

Rafique Tucker said...

Here's the thing: If there are verified, proven links between the Cordoba House and extremism, then I'll oppose this community center being built. Until then, this all looks like reflexive fear.

Just wanted to correct that last paragraph, and answer Darcy's point:

I don't think it's fear at all. It's disgust.

And to Pogo:

Does that policy include American Muslims? I'm just wondering how your policy ends up, vis-a-vis religious liberty, free speech, etc.

JAL said...

You do realize that we aren't at war with Islam, correct?

Okay Honey II, whatever.

It sure isn't B'nai Brith we are at war with.

I AM talking about a guy who wants to bring Sharia law into America, and who with one side of his mouth (in English) "denounces" "fanaticism and terrorism" but NEVER defines what that is? (The people we are at war with do not see themselves as fanatics... they see themselves as faithful.)

He speaks of "dialogue" in English and dismisses it as useless in Arabic.

This imam wants to bring Sharia law to America.

My Muslim vegetable wallah and meat wallah didn't want to kill me that I know of. They didn't mind cheating me -- in spite of the fact the Q'uran said it wasn't right. (Stop the Christians do it too line before it gets to your keyboard.)

BUT I am under no illusion that we had a mutually equal relationship vis a vis "rights." If I entered their world? Ha.

The "Muslim" world has to, as K*thy so eloquently aimed at us -- live with [their] fears and move on and tell the violent and / or extremists that they are no longer welcome in the moderate peace loving world.

Bottom line -- the "moderate" Muslims are even more afraid of the so called extremists than "we" are.

Pogo said...

"...how your policy ends up, vis-a-vis religious liberty, free speech, etc."

Speech is free, for now, but won't be under sharia law, which is the final aim for Islam.
That's my view.

JAL said...

@ Rafique
First thing, many have

Yeah. I see them writing letters to the newspaper and posting online evry.single.day.

Rafique Tucker said...

Rafique, as I mentioned earlier the fact they call it the Cordoba House makes me a bit wary. I'm sure that Muslims would be wary if I started an outreach center call the Richard the Lionhearted Society

I'lll cede that point, Hoosier, but I think it'll take more than that to justify the outrage over this. The reference to Cordoba is a bit curious (as well as the Sharia Index project), although I think their goal was to reference the Golden Age in the 12th century, that of Averroes and Avicenna. The reference is historically problematic for a number of reasons, but again, I fail to see, when looking at what's being proposed, the need for such opposition.

But that's me. And the Manhattan community board that approved it.

Ironclad said...

One can support the 1st Amendment in allowing people freedom of religion to believe whatever they choose, while drawing the line between the practice of those beliefs. We don't allow polygamy and we don't allow human sacrifice. And the problem with Islam is that is it welded to Sharia which IS a codification of laws that are generally totally at odds with Western civil law. No one has really figured out how to address this - although many in Europe are beginning to push back since they realize the dilemma.

To Andy, who just loves to be so tolerant, as one who has lived in one of the alleged "enlightened" Muslim countries, let me just say that they surely don't have ANY problems forbidding any religious practices other than there own to the literally millions of workers in those countries. And yes, I know that the USA is supposed to be "better" than all that - but understanding the way they play the game, I look at this construction as nothing more than provocation. The funding for this place is pretty murky too, but you can bet it has its origins in the middle east.

And the link you gave really had a lot of "enlightened" comments too. Four letter words abound and castigation of Palin and anything south of the Mason Dixon Line seem to be more prevalent than discussion of the mosque.

Darcy said...

Rafique, I wonder if you've read anything at all about the people behind Cordoba House that gives you pause. Anything at all? I'm asking sincerely.

I think a majority of the people (mostly conservative leaning) opposed to this mosque are opposed to it in the way that Juan Williams is. I'm not sure that a lot of conservatives are clamoring for a denial of property rights. I could be wrong, but I'm certainly not advocating that route.

I guess it's worth a try to shame them into building in a more suitable place, but I doubt it. They did call it Cordoba House, after all.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Secondly, is it your policy to assume all Muslims are allied with the enemy, until they sufficiently prove otherwise? "

Yes.

Robert Cook said...

Just because a bunch of ignorant Americans (but then, I repeat myself, as Mark Twain said referring to Congressional jackasses) are biased against Islam and confuse the religion with extremist terrorists who purport to act in its name, (as with abortion doctor murderers who claim to be acting in the name of Christ) is no reason to monger fear and hate toward this proposal and those who bring it. I thought we were supposedly a land where we're all free to practice our own creeds without fear or favor. I suppose that's true only if one practices one of the 57 varieties of Christian creeds.

No two ways about it: those who oppose the mosque are bigots.

downtownlad said...

Do you live there Ann? No. So its actually none of your business. So you should just shut up about it.

I however, DO vote in that district. I own property in that district. That is MY community board. And I wholeheartedly support that mosque. The vast majority of those in that district support the mosque. And there is another mosque just one block away.

And it is not the Ground Zero Mosque. You can't even see the mosque from Ground Zero.

There was zero controversy about this mosque until the bigots made a stink about this. And yes, you're siding with the bigots now.

Obviously you no zilch about New York City. You have no connections to New York City. You are not a voter in New York City.

This mosque is trying to build bridges with the community. That means community board #1, who support this.

It certain does not mean YOU or Sarah Palin's "fake America".

So the bigots should just mind their own business.

Muslims in Community Board #1 have the right to pray in their neighborhood.

A.W. said...

Here is a much better metaphor than the ones you guys have been offering: a Buddhist temple, replete with their swastikas, in sight of the Auschwitz camp. How about that? Expect a bunch of jews to put up with the sight of Swastikas near where swastika wearing assholes killed their people?

When you think about it, it’s a great metaphor. The Swastika was a symbol in Buddhism long before the Nazis misappropriated it. their theology has literally nothing to do with naziism—indeed, they were as appalled as anyone. The villification of that cultural symbol is collateral damage in WWII. But still, it’s a swastika at Auschwitz, an image that shouldn’t be allowed, whatever one’s excuse is. It has nothing to do with blame and it is NOT bigotry to oppose it.

Rafique Tucker said...

Pogo and DBQ, while I find your position quite disturbing, I do at least appreciate your honesty--there are those who tend to dance around the issue.

Darcy, as I said, the name Cordoba House, and the Sharia Index project, at first glance, does raise an eyebrow. Looking carefully though, I don't see enough at this point, to oppose this.

I'll say this again: As an American, a Christian, a lover of freedom, hater of tyranny, liberal, and a believer in decent civil society, if the goal of this venture was to impose militant Islam on America, in any degree, I'd oppose it. But, I just don't see it.

downtownlad said...

In fact, NONE of the people on this thread vote in Community Board #1. Except me.

So you know what - it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Your neighborhood was not attacked on 9/11. Mine was. You all watched it on TV.

Liberal downtown Manhattanites support our Muslim neighbors.

Bigots are trying to equate our Muslim friends with terrorists - which they are not. Many Muslims live in Community Board #1. Their neighborhood was attacked on 9/11, and now bigots across the country are trying to take away their freedom of religion and freedom of property.

Oh yeah - whatever happened to tea baggers loving the Constitution. Guess they forgot about the first amendment.

AllenS said...

Sorry, but everything is my business.

A.W. said...

Braindead comment of the day, from Andy R.

> Was it wrong for black people to begin drinking from water fountains in the south after the civil rights movement if that would offend the racist white people that lived there?

So, 9-11 was like the freedom march?

> Do you think the people building the community center in New York are the same ones that blew up the World Trade Center?

Um, no, but she was just pointing out the flaw in your stupid metaphor.

No one is saying that Muslims can’t have mosques anywhere. They are just saying, not at ground zero. In all of America, that is one sacred spot they should not be allowed to build in. And it is not bigotry to say that is unique.

Instead I see a left all too eager to avoid any judgments. For instance, early versions of the Flight 93 memorial would have counted the murderers among the “victims” of that flight.

Seriously, wtf? Why can’t liberals just once in their lives just oppose evil? There are plenty of things for liberals to hate in the islamofascists. Rape rooms, subjugation of women, the execution of gay people. Can’t you guys just find a tiny bit of intolerance for intolerance?

But no, liberals are such complete weenies that they can’t even see anything wrong in giving our sworn enemy a sign of victory. I always remember a line in a song by Tool discussing a seductive killer, the singer saying “sense your enemy.” Sense your enemy, idiots. They hate you. They hate everything you believe in. And they say we are so decadent as a society that we won’t find the moral strength to oppose them. And God damn if you aren’t proving them right.

Daniel

> And it's funny that a lot of those people don't even consider New York to be part of "real America" anyway

Oh, screw off.

We didn’t mourn for the killings on 9-11 to score political points. You are just projecting your own pathos on us.

> We've been doing it for 3000 years dude.

Um, yeah, they called that weathering the storm. And in Warsaw, 1939 or so, jews figured out that wasn’t going to work anymore.

I would add that weathering the storm is something you do when you are in a position of weakness and not able to vindicate your rights by force. We are in no such position (yet).

Tucker

> You do realize that we aren't at war with Islam, correct?

You do realize our enemies claim to be the “true Muslims,” right?

No, I don’t believe that all Muslims are bad or anything of the sort. But appearances matter, and this has a bad appearance.

Remember when people thought having Barrack Hussien Obama be our president would end the hatred toward the U.S. well, it hasn’t happened. He has even bowed to the kind of Saudi Arabia, and they still hate us. So maybe being extra nice isn’t going to work, you know?

Allen

> Either constitutionally outlaw the practice of Islam in America or let them build it.

All rights can give way to a compelling interest. We have a compelling interest in avoiding a message of surrender in the middle of a war.

Robert

> No two ways about it: those who oppose the mosque are bigots.

Right, I am bigoted for not wanting Osama bin Laden to think he won something. Idiocy, pure idiocy.

downtownlad said...

Maybe Gays should start calling for the removal of all churches in Greenwich Village and San Francisco.

After all, It's offensive to build a homophobic church in a gay neighborhood.

A.W. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A.W. said...

Downtowntard

> Your neighborhood was not attacked on 9/11.

I live in Northern Virginia, and you bet your ass my neighborhood was attacked on 9/11. Idiot.

And as a person who lives in a neighborhood attacked on 9-11, I say that every f---ing American has a say in the issue. This is about the war, which is not the sole property of NYC, WDC or even central PA.

downtownlad said...

Actually AllenS - you don't live in New York. So you don't get a vote. Neither does Ann. Neither does her boyfriend Meade.

I do.

So your opinion doesn't count on this matter. Mine does.

Sorry. Better luck next time.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Actually AllenS - you don't live in New York. So you don't get a vote. Neither does Ann. Neither does her boyfriend Meade.

I do.

So your opinion doesn't count on this matter. Mine does.


You don't go to church or believe in religion so your opinion doesn't count on that matter either.

downtownlad said...

The Pentagon is your neighborhood? Really? I highly doubt that.

Did the dust from the destruction land on your property? I doubt it. It landed on mine. Wasyour company attacked? Mine was.

The WTC destruction doesn't belong to those in Virginia. It is an event that hit New Yorkers. And New Yorkers alone (unless you happened to be flying on the plane).

You hate New York anyway A.W. You mock New Yorkers. You just think they are a bunch of liberals and faggots, right? You agree with Sarah Palin who said that New Yorkers are not "real Americans".

We're not. We believe in freedom and the Constitution. We have tolerance of those with other religions and different skin colors. Yup - we're not anything like those bigoted "real Americans" who hate Hispanics, gay people, and liberals.

AllenS said...

I said: Sorry, but everything is my business.

I said nothing about wanting a vote. You don't get to vote on me not having an opinion.

downtownlad said...

Religious people have lower IQs. Dust Bunny Queen proves that.

But stupid people have the right to practice their own religion.

downtownlad said...

I said your opinion doesn't matter, since it's not your neighborhood. It's like my opinion on the Kentucky Senate Race. It doesn't matter, because I don't get to vote there.

And yes - the Kentucky Senate race is none of my business. It's the business of Kentuckians.

AllenS said...

Everything is my business.

downtownlad said...

No Catholic Churches should be built near a school. After all of the pedophile scandals with the Catholic Church, it is just patently offensive to build a church so close to where children are studying.

Shawn L. said...

My 3¢:

1 - From what I'm reading, it's not a "Mosque," but a community center. It has a religious component, but it'll be no more a mosque than a YMCA (where the C stands for Christian) would be a church.

2 - The center is not at "ground zero" but two blocks away. No terrorist demolition was involved at this site.

3 - These objections are a slap in the face of the many muslim victims of 9/11 who worked in the WTC buildings, and their families.

AllenS said...

If I decide to send money to anyone in the Kentucky Senate race, I will. And there's not a fucking thing you can do to stop me.

A.W. said...

Downtowntard

> The Pentagon is your neighborhood? Really? I highly doubt that.

Yeah, given that you literally know nothing about me, that just demonstrates that you wish it wasn’t true, because then you can’t play the “I suffered on 9-11” trump card.

> The WTC destruction doesn't belong to those in Virginia.

The war on terror doesn’t belong to you, asshole. And thus it is not your right, and your right along, to wave a flag of surrender in it. Idiot.

> You hate New York anyway A.W.

You say, based on what, exactly?

> You mock New Yorkers.

I mock my brother, too. Doesn’t mean I don’t love him.

> You just think they are a bunch of liberals and faggots, right?

Again, you are basing this claim on what, exactly?

> You agree with Sarah Palin who said that New Yorkers are not "real Americans".

> We're not.

You’re not real Americans? I think most New Yorkers would say, “speak for yourself.”

> We believe in freedom and the Constitution.

Do you have the freedom to walk into a battlefield and wave a white flag? Or in the prosecution of a war, are we allowed to prevent that?

> We have tolerance of those with other religions and different skin colors.

And no one else does? Idiot.

But hey, you are so tolerant, you are even tolerant of those who are violently intolerant. i suppose next you will allow a Robert Byrd KKK white pride learning center to be erected next to the 16th St. Baptist Church, in Birmingham, Alabama, right?

A.W. said...

Shawn

2. is absolutely wrong. A piece of wreckage from 9-11 landed there, and that is percisely why they chose to put it there.

Pogo said...

"These objections are a slap in the face of the many muslim victims of 9/11...."

Bullshit.
Militant islamofascism is a slap in the face to those people.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Religious people have lower IQs. Dust Bunny Queen proves that.


I'm agnostic.

Judging all gay people by Downtownlad would be an injustice to gays.

A.W. said...

downtowntard

> After all of the pedophile scandals with the Catholic Church

Ah, so that is how it works?

you are tolerant of Islam.

But hate catholicism.

btw, you do know that islam was founded by a pedophile, right? I mean Mohammed had a wife named Aisha, who was 6 years old when he married her. But don't worry, he didn't consumate it then. lord knows, he would never have sex with a 6 year old girl. no, he waited. UNTIL SHE WAS NINE.

Does that allow you to hate islam as much as the catholic church?

Btw, they hate gays more than any cristian, you know? The taliban, following strict interpretation of the koran, would pull walls down on top of gay people.

AllenS said...

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we should have said nothing and let Hawaii handle it. Is that right, dtl?

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ said:

"Judging all gay people by Downtownlad would be an injustice to gays."

How true and funny too!

A.W. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A.W. said...

Allen

Building on your metaphor, and if they wanted to build a shrine to the worship of the living God Emperor Hirohito overlooking Pearl Harbor, we should have let that be Hawaii's business, too, right?

Excellent point.

AJ Lynch said...

DTL:

I thought you said you hated America and had left for good.

AllenS said...

If you don't have brown hair, shut up!

And don't even try and vote!

I don't want to hear your opinion, either!

Racist!

A.W. said...

Allen

maybe we are being too hard on DTL. I mean he is just a "lad," not a full grown adult. tantrums are to be expected. maybe when he grows up he will learn how to act right. :-)

Hoosier Daddy said...

DTL I find this curious. Up thread you state:

We're not. We believe in freedom and the Constitution. We have tolerance of those with other religions and different skin colors. Yup - we're not anything like those bigoted "real Americans" who hate Hispanics, gay people, and liberals.

Then later on you state:

Religious people have lower IQs.

Care to clarify?

peter hoh said...

So would it be okay if it were to be built three blocks away from the WTC site? Four blocks? Five? Ten?

It's good to see that those who objected to Kelo are not calling for the government to step in to prohibit this construction.

I won't presume to tell anyone what they can or can't find offensive. If you find the Cordoba project offensive, I'll take you at your word.

However, none of us have the right to not be offended.

AllenS said...

downtownlad is one of those commenters who show up, and are never in a good mood. Ever noticed that? Has he ever said anything funny or humorous. What a shitty way to go through life. Loser.

Pogo said...

NYC is a nanny state.
That's the reality conservatives have to live with, not some alternate universe where property rights are sacrosanct.

Bloomberg could stop this thing if he wanted to.
Goddamned useful idiot.

yashu said...

JAL posted various quotations from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on the previous thread on this topic, which I think are worth reposting again-- just so we're clear on this guy's thinking. I do so below. (Thank you JAL.)

The gist: 9/11 was… chickens coming home to roost. I guess many might count this as "moderate" & not "extremist", since after all this is the kind of thing professors at great universities across the country spout off as a matter of course. Like the kind of "nuanced" analysis we got from Oliver Stone re Hitler-- but I doubt even Oliver Stone would be making those nuanced points at, say, the site of Auschwitz.

Quotations posted by JAL on the previous thread:

From wiki:

Oct 12, 2001 In a 60 Minutes interview shortly after the September 11 attacks Imam Rauf said, "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam" and went on to say, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

Sept 30, 2001 When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. an accessory, the Imam replied, "Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."

March 2004 "The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

He also said that there could be little progress in Western-Islamic relations until the U.S. acknowledged backing Middle East dictators and give an "American Culpa" speech to the Muslim world, because there are "an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the world".

[JAL asks: Did President Obama visit his mosque? Read this article? Is that why he made his All American Apology Tour?]

May 26, 2010 "Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed."

When questioned Abdul Rauf continued: "Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.... New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia."

A.W. said...

Pogo

that's a good point. Its like what i say about the dictators of the middle east "tolerating" radical islam: you're dictators, so don't pretend this is just a matter of their freedom. do what you do best: dictate.

There isn't enough freedom in NYC to pretend this is just a matter of freedom. and a mayor who bans transfatty acids can't pretend to be a live and let live kind of guy.

jr565 said...

Downtownlad wrote:
Do you live there Ann? No. So its actually none of your business. So you should just shut up about it.

So then why is California getting involved in Arizona's business by proposing a boycott? Shouldn't they MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS?

Youngblood said...

Andy R. wrote:

"Should there be a buffer zone where no churches should be built around planned parenthood clinics that have been the site of christian-inspired violence?"

Nice try!

The problem is that there are already buffer zones around abortion clinics, buffer zones that are designed specifically to restrict freedom of speech. (In fact, the state of New York state has a buffer zone of 15 feet around abortion clinics -- and it doesn't matter if those clinics were the target of anti-abortion violence.)

Given that precedent, you can bet your sweet ass that if a Christian pastor who also happened to be an apologist for abortion clinic bombers wanted to open a church overlooking the site of an abortion clinic bombing, there would be one hell of a controversy.

Zing!

Comrade X said...

Williams said that the proposed mosque and the imam's actions are "a thumb in the eye to so many people who lost their lives and went through the trauma there. It's not promoting dialogue or understanding. In fact, it's polarizing

the insult is the message.

jr565 said...

By the way, Metafilter, a site which I believe Ann has linked to and participated with in the past had a post about this issue with informed and intelligent commentary.


You might also appreciate the opportunity to compare the comment section on Metafilter with the one here.


After reading the commentary I have one question. Is downtown lad writing under the name fourcheesemac? Also, with respect, I think the reason you think it's informed opinion is because it's left of center for the most part, and you agree with it.

El Pollo Real said...

After reading the commentary I have one question. Is downtown lad writing under the name fourcheesemac?

It's more likely that he posts under the name foreskincheesemac.

holdfast said...

Yashu - it sounds like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has an Ivy League history education.

We are so fukt.

jr565 said...

Dowtown lad:
n fact, NONE of the people on this thread vote in Community Board #1. Except me.

So you know what - it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Your neighborhood was not attacked on 9/11. Mine was. You all watched it on TV


I live in NYC. DO I not have a say? I think your idea is stupid as hell. And as a new yorker, I have no problem with others commenting aobut things that happen in new york.
What's your stance by the way on drilling for oil in alaska, if alasakans want it done? SInce you don't live there is it rerally ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS? Lets keep track of conversations going forward. Since we know you live in NY, if it's a conversation that involves anywhere outside of NY you shouldn't comment on it, because by your own rules IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
And for all your talk of liberal tolerance, note how intolerant you are of religous people and how presumtuous you are of any conservative opposition to your pet causes, which can be attributed to nothing but racism and bigotry in your mind. Maybe you're the intolerant one.

Youngblood said...

Downtownlad,

If New York is made up of special snowflakes who are so much better than the rest of America, why is it that New Yorkers oppose the construction of the mosque 52%-31%?

I mean, granted, Manhattan is the only burough where a majority of voters don't oppose the mosque.

However, even there, support for building the mosque is only at 46%. In other words, you can't eke out a majority for your own position in your immediate backyard!

By the way, since you brought up Hispanics, I'll point out that NYC's Hispanics oppose the construction of the mosque 60%-19%!

You don't speak for NYC, fuckwit. Hell, you don't even speak for Manhattan.

jeff said...

"By the way, Metafilter, a site which I believe Ann has linked to and participated with in the past had a post about this issue with informed and intelligent commentary.
You might also appreciate the opportunity to compare the comment section on Metafilter with the one here."
So if they agree with you they are informed and intelligent. Got it.

I checked out the comments, here is one about 6 down from the top.

"His parents made him go to that stupid church when he was a kid and everyone was always telling him what to do and he's had it up to here with sky wizards; but now that he's all grown up he's figured everything out and all those stupid bible-thumpers can just Deal With It."

Wow. Informed AND intelligent.

DTL seems to hate churches because he thinks they hate gays, yet he is solidly behind the building of this place. So either he is logically incoherent (which of course he is) and/or not to terribly bright.

Youngblood said...

(Poll results are from Quinnipiac.)

Original Mike said...

Old Dad said: "In the spirit of treasured American diversity and entrepreneurship, should the Cordoba Mosque be built, I suggest that immediately adjacent, the following should also be built: a military recruiting center, a Victoria Secret outlet mall, a kosher deli, a Holocaust museum,an Israeli Consulate, A Chistian Rock radio station, and the world's largest neon billboard featuring "Pork, the other white meat.""

Yeah.

Rafique Tucker said...

Seriously, wtf? Why can’t liberals just once in their lives just oppose evil? There are plenty of things for liberals to hate in the islamofascists. Rape rooms, subjugation of women, the execution of gay people. Can’t you guys just find a tiny bit of intolerance for intolerance?

But no, liberals are such complete weenies that they can’t even see anything wrong in giving our sworn enemy a sign of victory. I always remember a line in a song by Tool discussing a seductive killer, the singer saying “sense your enemy.” Sense your enemy, idiots. They hate you. They hate everything you believe in. And they say we are so decadent as a society that we won’t find the moral strength to oppose them. And God damn if you aren’t proving them right.


Actually, I think most liberals do in fact oppose evil, and Islamofascism. What you seem to unable to do, and apparently you're not alone in this, is make the distinction between Islamofascism, which is intrinsically evil, and Islam, which is not.

former law student said...

Growing up in a city that has a 29-story Methodist church, built in 1922-23, a 15-story mosque doesn't seem too odd to me:
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Building/2336/Chicago-Temple-First-United-Methodist-Church.php

But people are not exactly rational when it comes to religious buildings at the sites of mass murder. In the 80s was erected near Auschwitz, not a Buddhist temple, but a Carmelite convent. In response to Jewish protests, the church ordered the nuns to move out, even though no nuns had exterminated any Jews, and even though over 100,000 Polish Catholics had been killed there. (Note that the convent was outside the main Auschwitz camp, and not the extermination camp of Birkenau.)

El Pollo Real said...

Rafique Tucker wrote: ...the distinction between Islamofascism, which is intrinsically evil, and Islam, which is not.

A distinction is in degree & not in kind. That's why this is such a tough nut.

A.W. said...

Tucker

> Actually, I think most liberals do in fact oppose evil, and Islamofascism.

Liberals don’t even seem to believe in the existence of evil let alone have the stomach to fight it. or else there would be NO DISCUSSION of abandoning the mission in Afghanistan.

Or maybe they have a stance in opposition, but don’t want us to actually, you know, do anything about it. Maybe they oppose it, but don’t want to fight it. Fat lot of good that does anyone.

> What you seem to unable to do, and apparently you're not alone in this, is make the distinction between Islamofascism, which is intrinsically evil, and Islam, which is not.

So you say, after quoting me discussing islamofascism. Duh. It seems that you are the one quick to conflate the two.

No, what I am saying is that your freedom of speech or religion does not give you the right to signal surrender.

Bin Laden will take that as a signal of surrender. Yeah, maybe that’s not fair to good Muslims who are as opposed to bin Laden as I am, but life is not fair.

And I will add that there is good evidence that this project is tied to islamofascism. That’s beside the point in my argument, but relevant to the larger discussion.

A.W. said...

founder of ground zero mosque refuses to call hamas terrorists: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabL

Mike said...

Actually, I think most liberals do in fact oppose evil, and Islamofascism. What you seem to unable to do, and apparently you're not alone in this, is make the distinction between Islamofascism, which is intrinsically evil, and Islam, which is not.

I hear this a lot, and I know there are plenty of Muslims who do not support their evil co-religionists. In fact, I know some of them personally (neighbors and a few friends from years past).

But what I do not understand is their reluctance to stand against those evil ones. Yes, they may tell me, in private, that they do not support the evil, but where are the massive protests against it? Is there something in the Muslim psyche that prevents them speaking out? Are they really so different from us in the West?

Why don't they stand up en masse and shout, "We have nothing to do with those guys. They have corrupted our faith and we disavow ourselves of them and spit them out."

Maybe someone can help me understand this, because I just don't get it.

SMGalbraith said...

I find if frankly astonishing that some people are arguing that no matter what type of person is behind the contruction of this Islamic center, no matter what his views are on 9/11, no matter how decent and honorable a person he may be, that he must be barred from constructing that center.

Simply because he's a Muslim?

Yes, yes, I can understand the sensitivity argument. That it's just not proper, that's the wounds are still too raw. Okay.

But to deny him this right simply because of his religion?

To use a very provocative phrase, that is simply un-American.

peter hoh said...

Williams carves out a comfortable position in which he doesn't really take a stand.

What should happen if the imam who owns the property isn't persuaded to stop building there?

former law student said...

founder of ground zero mosque refuses to call hamas terrorists

They hold a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament.

Shanna said...

In the spirit of treasured American diversity and entrepreneurship, should the Cordoba Mosque be built, I suggest that immediately adjacent, the following should also be built: a military recruiting center, a Victoria Secret outlet mall, a kosher deli, a Holocaust museum,an Israeli Consulate, A Chistian Rock radio station, and the world's largest neon billboard featuring "Pork, the other white meat."

Heh (I imagine they wouldn't be so tolerant of that). Look, I think if the guys owns the land he can build what he wants but it doesn’t mean he’s not an asshole for doing it.

The reference to Cordoba is a bit curious (as well as the Sharia Index project), although I think their goal was to reference the Golden Age in the 12th century, that of Averroes and Avicenna.

I’m not sure that a modern person should be looking back to the 12th century as the “golden age”. The choice of name seems more than “curios”.

A.W. said...

direct AQ funding links to the ground zero mosque. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/terror-finded-ground-zero-mosque-imam-raufs-bin-laden-link.html

my argument didn't depend on this sort of thing, but its another nail in the coffin.

El Pollo Real said...

Rafique Tucker wrote:
What you seem to unable to do, and apparently you're not alone in this, is make the distinction between Islamofascism, which is intrinsically evil, and Islam, which is not.

Tucker wishes to make this distinction sound cut and dry and his choice of words belittles those who would sincerely try to make such a distinction.

Mike's words speak to this:
But what I do not understand is their reluctance to stand against those evil ones.

If the commonest of the followers of the notion of Islam cannot or chose not to speak upwards against the worst, what are we to think of that common?

Original Mike said...

Daniel said: "And it's funny that a lot of those people don't even consider New York to be part of "real America" anyway, except when they have a political axe to grind."

DTL said: "So you know what - it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Your neighborhood was not attacked on 9/11. Mine was. You all watched it on TV."

Yeesh

former law student said...

I’m not sure that a modern person should be looking back to the 12th century as the “golden age”.

Let's also discontinue paying attention to the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and to Ancient Rome and Greece.

Shanna said...

Dammit, "curious".

Your neighborhood was not attacked on 9/11. Mine was. You all watched it on TV.

I watched the pentagon smoking from Capitol Hill, actually.

A.W. said...

Former

> They hold a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament.

Well, i believe they only control Gaza, hense why people call it Hamasastan.

But what of it? the two are not incompatable. they are terrorists in charge of a government. its an indictment on gaza and the palestinian people, proving that they are not just innocent bystanders.

A.W. said...

Ground Zero Imam, speaking on September 30, 2001, on the attacks:

"BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

"Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

"BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory?

"Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

"BRADLEY: How?

"Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true

Is it okay to conflate this idiot with the terrorists?

Rafique Tucker said...

Liberals don’t even seem to believe in the existence of evil let alone have the stomach to fight it. or else there would be NO DISCUSSION of abandoning the mission in Afghanistan.

You mean liberals like Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, George Will, Joe Scarborough, among others? And do I even need to address how flatly ridiculous that first statement is?

BTW, I support the mission in Afghanistan, FWIW.

You argued that the refusal of liberals to condemn the Cordoba House was a sign of their refusal to condemn Islamofascism. Thus, the conflation is all yours.

Original Mike said...

"Did the dust from the destruction land on your property? I doubt it. It landed on mine. Wasyour company attacked? Mine was.

The WTC destruction doesn't belong to those in Virginia. It is an event that hit New Yorkers. And New Yorkers alone (unless you happened to be flying on the plane).

You hate New York anyway A.W. You mock New Yorkers. You just think they are a bunch of liberals and faggots, right? You agree with Sarah Palin who said that New Yorkers are not "real Americans".

We're not. We believe in freedom and the Constitution. We have tolerance of those with other religions and different skin colors. Yup - we're not anything like those bigoted "real Americans" who hate Hispanics, gay people, and liberals."


This is really sad. I remember driving through northern Wisconsin on the Friday after 9/11. The little towns along the way were festooned with American flags; in solidarty with the Americans who were attacked that day. I talked to several people. Teary eyes were common, including my own.

former law student said...

Honored statesmen like Yitzhak Shamir were once despised terrorists -- a leader of a group that assassinated the kindly and heroic Lord Moyne (a member of the Guinness brewing family) and the noble Count Bernadotte -- a man who actually rescued Jews in WW II.

AJ Lynch said...

It is pitiful that they have to go back 800 years to cite when things were really wonderful.

I have to say they sound like a bunch of lying losers to me.

Rafique Tucker said...

El Pollo Real:

Mike does in fact make a great point, and Mike, there has been much debate about why more mainstream Muslim aren't speaking out. Is it fear of reprisal? THere is a lot to discuss, but are in fact numerous people speaking out, at risk to their lives, every day.

Also, I never said the distinction was "cut and dry." The thing is, whwn one adopts a position that many here have, that Muslims should be assumed to be in league with the enemy, until proven otherwise, it's really hard to see the distinction being made.

El Pollo Real said...

This is really sad.

DTL is perhaps the saddest of the sad. Here's what I imagine he looks like, huffing & puffing his way through these comments until people toss enough paint on him to expose him: linkage

HDHouse said...

I find it interesting that 50 plus Muslims were killed on 9-11, including several police cadets and firefighters, a lot of employees of firms in the towers, husbands, wives, etc. the percentage of Muslims killed out of the total casualty list was about the same ratio of the population at large. There are about half a dozen or active churches within a stone's throw of the epicenter.

your point is what?

Original Mike said...

"I hear this a lot, and I know there are plenty of Muslims who do not support their evil co-religionists. In fact, I know some of them personally (neighbors and a few friends from years past).

But what I do not understand is their reluctance to stand against those evil ones. Yes, they may tell me, in private, that they do not support the evil, but where are the massive protests against it? Is there something in the Muslim psyche that prevents them speaking out? Are they really so different from us in the West?

Why don't they stand up en masse and shout, "We have nothing to do with those guys. They have corrupted our faith and we disavow ourselves of them and spit them out."

Maybe someone can help me understand this, because I just don't get it."


I have puzzled over this too. It pains me to say this, but I have come to the conclusion that they do not disagree with the terrorists believes and actions. I don't say this as a certainty, but it is the simplest explanation.

Shanna said...

Let's also discontinue paying attention to the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and to Ancient Rome and Greece.

I wouldn't want to go back to any of those times permanently though, would you? We've learned, we've moved on. Some people are still stuck in the 12th century, that's what I'm saying.

A.W. said...

Tucker

> You mean liberals like Pat Buchanan,

Pat is neither conservative nor liberal, but instead a nazi. He probably opposes the war because he thinks jews are behind it and when he agrees with the left, that is just moronic convergence.

> Ann Coulter,

Where has she said she is against that war? At best I saw her defend against Steele’s idiocy.

> George Will,

Who cares about Will?

> Joe Scarborough

What did he say? By the way, I will note that two of those “conservatives” are on a TV network that no one actually watches.

> And do I even need to address how flatly ridiculous that first statement is?

Sure, you never heard a liberal claim that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, right?

> BTW, I support the mission in Afghanistan, FWIW.

Good. Seriously, good.

> You argued that the refusal of liberals to condemn the Cordoba House was a sign of their refusal to condemn Islamofascism.

No, I said that cordoba house will be seen as a white flag of surrender, and their refusal to condemn that is based on their unwillingness to fight. I have always said that this has nothing to do with the intent of the people building it (though I have posted links telling us a lot about them), and has everything to do with how it will be interpreted, something completely out of their hands. You are the one conflating, my friend, not me.

Original Mike

> This is really sad. I remember driving through northern Wisconsin on the Friday after 9/11. The little towns along the way were festooned with American flags; in solidarty with the Americans who were attacked that day.

Mmm, it reminds me of a story. President Bush was on an aircraft carrier, when we were only fighting Afghanistan. He saw where one plane had bombs where NYPD was painted on one, and FDNY was painted on another. He asked the pilot, “did you have a personal connection to anyone who died on 9-11?” (paraphrase)

The pilot responded, “Yes. They were Americans.”

A.W. said...

FLS

> Honored statesmen like Yitzhak Shamir

Thank you for proving my point to Tucker. A classic liberal who can’t even denounce terrorism, which is pure evil.

Original Mike

> I have come to the conclusion that they do not disagree with the terrorists [beliefs] and actions.

I have read where funding has a strong influence over the leadership of a muslim church so that it is very possible that the vast majority of Muslims are good people, but they are not in charge. Perhaps if islam became more like a Congregationalist church we would hear more from imams denouncing terrorism.

AllenS said...

Remember when Muslims were cutting heads off with dull knives? Man, that was some bad PR.

Almost Ali said...

What you seem to unable to do, and apparently you're not alone in this, is make the distinction between Islamofascism, which is intrinsically evil, and Islam, which is not.

It is Islam which is unable to make the distinction. Because the two are and always will be perpetually interchangeable.

Rafique Tucker said...

A.W.:

First off, I will never defend Pat Buchanan, or Coulter, for that matter. She did say, in defending Steele, that she thought his concerns about the war were valid. Scarborough has been criticizing the war from a plaeoconservative position since 2009.

As to the infamous terrorist-freedom fighter quote: I've never bought into that, and I think it's painting with a broad brush to lay that on all liberals.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we should base our policies squarely on how our enemies might interpret them. When a jihadist is killed in the battlefield, they see it as an act of martyrdom. Should we cease taking out terrorists? Heck, our entire enterprise in the Middle East is interpreted by certain people as an imperialist conquest. Should we pull out of the Middle East, then? Of course not. Not prematurely, I mean.

jr565 said...

Almost Ali wrote:
What you seem to unable to do, and apparently you're not alone in this, is make the distinction between Islamofascism, which is intrinsically evil, and Islam, which is not.

The problem is, which group more closely reflects Islam throughout history, the moderate Islam we find in this country, or the islamofascists represented by teh terrorists. If you look at any country that has shariah law, it appears to be much closer to the terrorists view of Islam than the moderates. If you read the hadiths and look at how Mohammad actually lived, he appears far closer to the terrorists than the moderates.
But even if youre right, the moderates still lose, because whenever the extremist rears his ugly head (like for example, 9/11 or the cartoon controversy that erupted a few years ago) there are huge demonstrations in favor of the extreme islam posiition, but the moderates are nowhere to be found. So if only one side is presenting a face of the religion, doesnt' that side win?

A.W. said...

Tucker

> First off, I will never defend

I didn’t accuse you of defending them. you keep reading things into my words I don’t actually say.

> She did say, in defending Steele, that she thought his concerns about the war were valid.

Saying a concern is valid is not the same as saying pull out.

I mean I am concerned about our rules of engagement, in that we are needlessly endangering our soldiers with pansy rules. That doesn’t exactly make me anti-war, now does it?

> I've never bought into that, and I think it's painting with a broad brush to lay that on all liberals.

I am sorry, but in my observation, liberals are by and large moral relativists. I am sure exceptions exist, but if you are not, you might question whether you count as a liberal.

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we should base our policies squarely on how our enemies might interpret them.

You don’t think we should demoralize them? I mean, that is psy-ops 101. And certainly we should not do anything to encourage them.

> When a jihadist is killed in the battlefield, they see it as an act of martyrdom. Should we cease taking out terrorists? Heck, our entire enterprise in the Middle East is interpreted by certain people as an imperialist conquest. Should we pull out of the Middle East, then? Of course not. Not prematurely, I mean.

Well, your mistake is to lump me in with those who tell us we should do what they claim the terrorists want them to do, or that we should flog ourselves or something. You are conflating appeasement with avoiding a sign of surrender.

Right after 9-11, the more lefty liberals told us we had to figure out “why they hate us.” When I commented that we didn’t worry overly much about why the Nazis hated the jews, or the klan hated black people, they assured me that this was designed to get in their head to fight them better. Except what do you know, the same people constantly said crap like, gee, if we only became a socialist utopia, then they would stop hating us. My favorite was the liberal who claimed that bin laden was building day care centers. You know, because bin Laden is all about helping women live independent lives. And big coincidence these are the same people telling us to pull out of Afghanistan. That made it obvious that the “why they hate us” line was really about flogging this country, and trying to convince us to institute their legislative priorities. Never waste a good crisis, indeed.

If those liberals really wanted to use their mentality against them, this is what we and they would do. First, we would take the identifiable remains of every single terrorist from 9-11 and bury them with pigs. Ditto with every other islamofascist terrorist. According to their theology if we do that, they won’t get their 72 virgins, they will burn in hell. They use their religion against us, we should return the favor. And that is only the tip of the iceberg of the ways we could screw with their heads if we wanted to, but don’t.

I don’t want to appease these assholes. I want to tell them in terms that they will understand, that we are never going to give in or surrender. And I want them to fear our power. This shouldn’t even be a difficult issue.

A.W. said...

jr

i will point out that the cartoon controversy is still going. in fact we recently had an everyone draw mohammed day protest. i had a site big enough to be banned in pakistan.

http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/

SMGalbraith said...

It is Islam which is unable to make the distinction. Because the two are and always will be perpetually interchangeable.

Then why have Muslims been the chief victims of Islamofascism?

If there's no doctrinal difference, if the two are identical, why would one group attack the other? Wouldn't they be united?

Almost Ali said...

jr565 said...
The problem is, which group more closely reflects Islam throughout history, the moderate Islam we find in this country, or the islamofascists represented by [the] terrorists.

There can be no moderates in Islam, only apostates.

Almost Ali said...

SMGalbraith said...
Then why have Muslims been the chief victims of Islamofascism?

Without accepting your premise:

If the cause [slaughter] is mistaken, the honor of death remains. There's no zero-sum in Islam, only martyrs and apostates.

A.W. said...

Guys, let me be clear. There are definitely good Muslims. Let me tell you a story.

Remember election day in Iraq all those years ago? The purple fingers, which people thought at first would mark people for death, but instead became a powerful symbol of defiance?

Well, the day was not without its tragedy. One was a man who had down’s syndrome. The terrorists grabbed him and strapped a bomb to him. its probably wrong to call him a suicide bomber, because his family denies he was the type to do anything of the sort. So it was probably more like this. They told him the suicide belt was a batman utility belt, and the line of voters was the line for free candy. Or who knows? I am just saying the man probably had literally no appreciation of the danger he was creating. I am not a big fan of the term “homicide bomber” but it really fit in that case.

Anyway, so this guy is headed toward a line of people lined up to vote, and one Iraqi police officer saw what was happening and intervened. He ran up to the man and literally hugged him to hold him in place. and he did so until for one reason or another the bomb went off. Both men died.

At the funeral of the police officer, his father declared that his son was in heaven now, because he had died in jihad—that is the jihad for freedom and democracy.

I won’t pretend to know whether most of islam in most of the world is evil or not, and I certainly won’t even try to judge whether the faith itself is good or evil. But it is almost an empirical fact that the tenants of islam can be applied to good ends.

But that doesn’t mean we should let these idiots put up a ground zero mosque and wave the flag of surrender, either.

A.W. said...

And i will add that the police officer in my story became a national hero with tons of crap like schools named after him. if democracy works out in iraq, then probably 100 years from now he will probably be remembered at least at the level of a nathan hale.

SMGalbraith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SMGalbraith said...

If the cause [slaughter] is mistaken, the honor of death remains. There's no zero-sum in Islam, only martyrs and apostates.

Which, of course, is an admission that the radicals view as apostates those Muslims that don't embrace their brand of Islam.

Proving, again, that Islam is a splintered religion.

Michael said...

Williams had it right. It is not about Islam or Islamists or Jihadists, it is about doing something offensive and that thing is to build a mosque in lower Manhattan proximate to ground zero. A child would know not to do this. It has nothing to do with hatred of Islam it has to do with taste and if it has to explained it cannot be. That the mosque is being supported by "peaceful" Muslims says a lot about them and their ignorance.

c3 said...

Reading all of this suddenly reminded me of this. I was living in Chicago at the time.

Almost Ali said...

There is no brand in Islam, only Islam.

Youngblood said...

SMGalbraith,

I can totally appreciate that there are good and bad Muslims. I agree that lumping them together into one category.

Is Faisal Abdul Rauf one of the good Muslims or one of the bad ones?

You answered me last night by saying that you couldn't render a judgement. This is why your argument sucks, and it hurts the good Muslims each time you trot it out.

See, anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together for warmth can see that Rauf is an apologist for terrorists. By throwing out the line that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims over and over again in defense of a bad Muslim, you suggest that he's a good Muslim.

However, because he's plainly not, you end up supporting the argument that all Muslims are like this douche.

rhhardin said...

According to Armstrong and Getty, building a mosque on conquered sacred ground is standard operating procedure for Islam.

One instance was in coincidentally identically named Cordoba, Spain; where the Great Mosque was built over the former Catholic church.

It's meant as a continuing insult, in other words.

Andy R. said...

It's also worth noting that NYC isn't the only place in America where crazy bigots are protesting a Muslim building project.

I'm guessing from the rhetoric here that most of you probably also agree with those other protests and that the proximity to the WTC center site for this specific project is just convenient cover.

SMGalbraith said...

By throwing out the line that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims over and over again in defense of a bad Muslim, you suggest that he's a good Muslim.

Ye olde "If you don't agree with me 100%, then you must be defending the bad X".

I'll pass.

Michael said...

Andy R: Americans have demonstrated nothing but tolerance towards Muslims since 9/11 in every way including ignoring the obvious, changing the meaning of words, basically bending themselves into pretzels to spare feelings. Muslims have taken this as an opportunity to have a good laugh and to test the public's willingness to permit mosques in places where no church of any affiliation would be placed. If you would like to feel superior to the thinking half of the world by pretending that a mosque near ground zero is just fine then I suggest you convert to show your real solidarity.

Andy R. said...

If you would like to feel superior to the thinking half of the world by pretending that a mosque near ground zero is just fine then I suggest you convert to show your real solidarity.

It's not a mosque. I almost feel like Sisyphus with my rock trying to talk some sense and reason into you people, but try to get that most basic and obvious fact right so you have any credibility.

A.W. said...

Andy R.

> It's also worth noting that NYC isn't the only place in America where crazy bigots are protesting a Muslim building project.

Fuck off. You want to just call us all bigoted for offering reasoned argument? Fuck off.

Yeah, we are bigots for opposing a flag of surrender. Fuck off.

> I'm guessing from the rhetoric here

Yeah, in short, you are just exposing YOUR bigotry, about us.

> It's not a mosque.

Actually it is: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/02/ny-commission-to-vote-on-landmark-status-for-ground-zero-islamic-center-site/

Youngblood said...

"Ye olde 'If you don't agree with me 100%, then you must be defending the bad X'."

Not at all.

I'll break down it down for you:

Yes. There are good Muslims who fight terrorism. Unfortunately, Feisal Abdul Rauf isn't one of them. For you to keep invoking the fact that there are good Muslims who fight terrorism to defend one of the guys who doesn't undermines your own position.

I really don't care if you agree with me. I have known good Muslims who have literally fought terrorism on the front lines. I don't really care to see you undermine them, even minimally, because you're willfully blind.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's also worth noting that NYC isn't the only place in America where crazy bigots are protesting a Muslim building project.

Considering liberals have shown tolerance toward Christians, their beliefs and values I find your bigot label to be quite hilarious.

yashu said...

SMG,

It seems to me you're the one who constructed a strawman when you wrote:

"I find it frankly astonishing that some people are arguing that no matter what type of person is behind the construction of this Islamic center, no matter what his views are on 9/11, no matter how decent and honorable a person he may be, that he must be barred from constructing that center.

Simply because he's a Muslim? […] To use a very provocative phrase, that is simply un-American."

There may be 1 or 2 commenters on this & the previous thread (not counting known mobys) who fits that description; but most of the commenters-- certainty those offering the most substantive arguments here-- *do* care specifically who this imam is, what his character & intentions are, & have offered citations and references on this point.

In fact, it is you who is arguing on the basis of complete indifference as to "what type of person is behind the construction of this Islamic center, no matter what his views are on 9/11, no matter how decent and honorable a person he may be." Various commenters here have addressed who this imam is, & this informs their argument. Have you?

Meta-side-comment, I wish we got more new liberal (I assume liberal, I may be wrong) commenters like Rafique Tucker, who offers reasoned argument & actually engages in dialogue with the commenters here, & less of the insufferable mobys & trolls. Welcome, Rafique.

Youngblood said...

Andy R. wrote:

"It's not a mosque. I almost feel like Sisyphus with my rock trying to talk some sense and reason into you people, but try to get that most basic and obvious fact right so you have any credibility."

OK, I'll bite:

How will an Islamic Cultural Center with a prayer hall that will accomodate 2,000 people not be a mosque?

I mean, I'm fairly familiar with Islam and I know my way around the Hadith. I know where to find the section on mosques. I want to see if you are, or you're just parroting what you've read on some random blog somewhere.

Youngblood said...

Yashu wrote:

"Various commenters here have addressed who this imam is, & this informs their argument. Have you?"

SMGalbraith addressed Feisal Abdul Rauf last night, in comments attached to an entry a couple of posts down from this one.

He said, basically, that he didn't know enough about the man's views, so he couldn't render a definitive judgement.

Andy R. said...

How will an Islamic Cultural Center with a prayer hall that will accomodate 2,000 people not be a mosque?

Um, because it's an Islamic Cultural Center. It would be like calling a JCC a synagogue or temple or a YMCA a church. There might be a place for prayer space in those buildings but if you told a Jewish person that a JCC was a synagogue they would look at you like you're crazy. I'm just trying to steer away from the rhetoric of "OMG the terrorist muslims are building a 13 story mosque on top of the smoldering World Trade Center ruins."

It's a community center, a couple of blocks away, without a clear line of sight to Ground Zero.

Wikipedia says that along with the prayer space it will have a "500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, a culinary school, and a food court serving halal dishes."

It just seems misguided to call a building of that magnitude a mosque and ignore the purpose it will serve and what it will be providing to the community.

Andy R. said...

Fuck off. You want to just call us all bigoted for offering reasoned argument? Fuck off.

Yeah, we are bigots for opposing a flag of surrender.


Just to be clear, you think describing a Muslim Community Center a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero as a flag of surrender is a reasoned argument? Is that what you're saying?

former law student said...

A classic liberal who can’t even denounce terrorism, which is pure evil.


Or are you a conservative who will not denounce terrorism in a cause you endorse?

former law student said...

Andy -- As far as I can tell, "Islamic Community Centers" invariably include a mosque. The one at ASU, for example, has a website called "tempemasjid.com"

Calling it an Islamic Community Center makes it more palatable than calling it a mosque would be, and it includes a place for non-Muslims to visit.

k said...

As their empire came crashing down around them, the newly Christian Romans were gripped by disputes over obscure theological points. Facing the reality that our country will be bankrupt in a few decades at most if we don't make serious and painful decisions is uncomfortable. Let's hyperventilate about something less frightening.

A.W. said...

Andy R.

> Just to be clear, you think describing a Muslim Community Center a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero as a flag of surrender is a reasoned argument?

First, notice you ignore contrary facts. Even cnn admits its partially a mosque.

And seriously, you think that makes a difference. If its just a cultural center, well then they can take it somewhere down the road. Only a mosque or other house of worship implicates the first amendment.

And yes, it is a fucking flag of surrender, whatever it is. I know you are too blinkered to get that, too politically correct, but here’s a hint. Osama bin Laden launched 9-11 in order to spread Islam. That is straight from his confession video. And if this goes up he can say, “heck there is even a mosque right down the street from where the towers were.” It sends a message of hope to all the islamofascists in the world, which is therefore the wrong message.

Is that too complex for you? Here’s a do and a don’t: 1) DON’T give our enemies hope; 2) DO make them despair of ever defeating us. Oh, and for bonus points, DO make them terrified of us. Sheesh.

Oh, but its bigotry to oppose that. I guess Juan Williams is a bigot, then, right?

FLS

> Or are you a conservative who will not denounce terrorism in a cause you endorse?

You were the one trying to say some terrorists are great guys, not me.

reader_iam said...

Me, I'm loving the part where the willingness to denounce is considered intrinsic to demonstrating good faith.

Because of course it is. Except, of course, when it's not. LOL.

Gary Rosen said...

FLS:

"They hold a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament."

And their charter explicitly calls for the murder of Jews - not Israelis, not settlers, not Zionistrs but Jews. Is that a bug or a feature, FLS?

Gary Rosen said...

Have FLS and C-fudd ever been seen in the same place at the same time?

reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

It just seems misguided to call a building of that magnitude a mosque and ignore the purpose it will serve and what it will be providing to the community.

You mean the 58% of the community that doesn't want it built, or the 20% which does?

Obviously the owners of the land should have the right to build a mosque or a church or a porno theater or whatever else they please. Nobody sensible is arguing that they should be banned from doing so. But putting up Muslim community center just up the street from a place where Muslims murdered a bunch of people for Muslim reasons is a dick move.

In 1994 two receptionists at an abortion clinic were murdered by John Salvi, a member of Human Life International. Now, Human Life International is not a terrorist organization. But if they had followed up the murders by opening up a headquarters next to the clinic where the murders took place, would anybody believe them if they claimed it was about "outreach"? Of course not. We would recognize it as an insult to the deceased -- either a deliberate insult, or one caused by the perpetrators being too pig-ignorant to account for the feelings of others.

A.W. said...

btw, someone mentioned the aschwitz nuns issue. there is an editorial here explaining the controversy in a little more detail. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405330350430368.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Youngblood said...

"Um, because it's an Islamic Cultural Center. It would be like calling a JCC a synagogue or temple or a YMCA a church. There might be a place for prayer space in those buildings but if you told a Jewish person that a JCC was a synagogue they would look at you like you're crazy."

The discussion has moved to the next blog entry on this topic, but to tie up loose ends, I asked my question to see if you knew what makes a mosque a mosque.

You don't. You're assuming that a mosque is precisely the same as a synagogue, temple, shul, or church, and it's not.

Go check the Hadith on what makes a mosque a mosque before "correcting" people about a religion you clearly know nothing about.