One by one, members of the commission debated the aesthetic significance of the building, designed in the Italian Renaissance Palazzo style by an unknown architect.That is clearly the way it had to be done. But what should not be lost, in understanding that, is that the owner's freedom means that the owner has a choice. The owner is certainly not required to build a Muslim center and mosque on that site. Because it is a choice, it's not wrong for the community to ask: Why are you making this choice? Why are you doing something that feels so painful to us? The community isn't wrong to plead with the owner to choose to do something else with that property. It's not enough of an answer to say we are doing it because we have a right to do it.
What troubles me about the way the NYT presents the problem is that it tries to make it seem as though the people who question the choice to build the mosque don't understand or don't support the principle of freedom of religion — that they just hate (or dislike) Muslims and, for that reason, would deny them the same freedom other religious persons enjoy. Rights don't work like that. But we can completely understand and support a principle of freedom and still be critical of the way someone chooses to behave in this world. For example, I'm a big supporter of freedom of the press, and I don't feel the slightest bit hypocritical condemning something stupid I read in the newspaper.
Posts
365 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 365 of 365In any case it's obvious that this is a polarizing event intended to further weaken unity.
JAL - Here's something else your fat fuck buddy said today on his show:
"Tomorrow is Obama's birthday, not that we've seen any proof of that... What? We haven't seen any proof of that! They tell us August 4th is the birthday; we haven't seen any proof of that! Sorry. It is what it is."
Are YOU a birther, too?
How about the rest of the local gang?
How many HERE are birthers??
C'mon...let's see how many have the guts to post what they really are.
Well, the conservatives have spoken, folks. They care more about exerting some kind of supposed national jurisdiction over zoning codes and furthering intolerance and religious conflict than they do rebuilding the nation's financial system - which is what the 9/11 hijackers sought to destroy anyway. Buildings and religious symbols over actual indicators of strength - both economically and ideologically.
This is all that's left of the conservative rump.
In any case it's obvious that this is a polarizing event intended to further weaken unity.
How stupid does someone have to be to not understand that polarizing religious rhetoric is one of the only tricks left in the Republican grab-bag?
How many HERE are birthers??
Just Mick.
I think Obama is a natural-born citizen. I just don't think his parents were ever really married.
Ritmo wrote:
"Fuck off and learn to respect local control already, dipshits."
New Yorkers, as a whole, object to the construction of the mosque. Even in Manhattan, the one burough that doesn't oppose the construction of the mosque, opinion is sharply divided.
But Manhattanites won't actually be building the mosque. They don't really do construction, y'know? For that, they're going to have to rely on the city's blue collar population.
Staten Island is NYC's solid blue collar burough. Opposition to the mosque there is over 70%. The city's hispanic population is against the mosque 60%-19%.
No poll has been taken of the FDNY and the NYPD, but you can bet all the money in your bank account that the city's rank and file cops and firemen are heavily against the project and see it as a betrayal.
And their brothers and sons are the ones who are going to be expected to build it.
Let's see if you're still crowing about local control when we get closer to the groundbreaking ceremony and they NYC's blue collar starts exerting pressure.
That raises an interesting Matrushka analogy. The analogy is whether larger communities actually "comprise" smaller ones and whether a larger generic America really includes all of the smaller parts.
We do get upset lately when smaller parts thought to be part of whole assert their specific values upon the whole.
When the converse occurs it's understandable that there would be opposition.
Hmmm... what to make of the shrunken Republican brand then...? What a conundrum.
How stupid does someone have to be to not understand that polarizing religious rhetoric is one of the only tricks left in the Republican grab-bag?
Exsqueeze me? Have you studied out the sequence of events in this case?
Who is polarizing whom?
Ritmo,
You know the Quinnipiac poll you pointed to shows that only 46% of Manhattanites support the construction of the mosque, right?
Even in Manhattan, where support is greatest, the mosque can't even eke out a majority to support it.
Let's see if you're still crowing about local control when we get closer to the groundbreaking ceremony and they NYC's blue collar starts exerting pressure.
Blue collar, white collar, purple collar. I could give a crap. I posted the poll - which is more than any of you authoritarians did. And BTW, more than just firefighters died in that event - including plenty of Muslims. Of course, I'm sure their lives aren't as meaningful to you - but that's your problem.
Who is polarizing whom?
This is Palin's cause celebre, and one that her employer, Faux Noise, ran with. It wasn't on the radar screen nationally until then.
And Youngblood might want to learn about how pluralities work.
Big Mike said..."I think Obama is a natural-born citizen. I just don't think his parents were ever really married."
Oh, I see. He's natural-born bastard citizen? Based on what? That dick you're holding in your hands?
You're really an asshole.
Hmmm... what to make of the shrunken Republican brand then...? What a conundrum.
Why do you reach for Republican/Democrat labels?
Just askin'
PS: your mask is slipping a bit.
JAL
Wonder what the Japanese would think if someone built a monument to Enola Gay and Little Boy a couple blocks from ground zero in Hiroshima?
That makes no sense. You [or Rush] is saying that a Muslim community center is representative of the airplanes used to fly into the WTC. This is a community center not a monument to a flying bomb. Please get an analogy on par with reality.
I would say, instead, it would be like some Evangelicals building a Church in Hiroshima. Oh wait. They did.
Goodness. What will the people of Hiroshima think?
Crickets....
BINGO RITMO!
Toldja!
Who is polarizing whom?
Better answer: The one who promotes the idea of a War of Civilizations.
It's Palin (cf. her idiotic "refudiate" tweet that set this whole shitstorm off). And now the other cons figured out that since the right isn't in the mood for actual answers to the incredible number of real problems plaguing the country, they might as well run with the Big Fight against the Underhanded Muslims.
I see the birthers are staying quiet.
Gutless.
As for Youngweenie's comment about not getting a majority of new Yorkers to favor the mosque...there are about 15% who just don't give a flying fuck.
That should tell you how important it really is.
So these six examples you provide makes it okay to be insensitive to the beliefs of a religion?
Who is being "insensitive" here?
Daniel Pearl was trying to tell their story ... sensitively.
Look, I lived in a country with a large Muslim population, and did business with Muslim small businessmen. I knew people.
I care about the Iranians who live under the nut cases. The abandonment (after being lied to) of Arabs - Muslim mostly, but some Christian -- in the Middle East by other Muslim Arabs is horrible.
I have a family member who voluntarily deployed to Iraq in Transitional and Stabilization to work with Muslim Iraqis as they set their foundational infrastructure. He knows people who are Muslim. That doesn't change the fact that there are Muslims trying to blow up his Iraqi Muslim coworkers and friends.
So please, spare me YOUR touching sensitvity. (Of which I have never seen you display one iota... even Garage shows up as human sometimes).
You show yourself as being devoid of substance. Maybe there's someone there, but probably only your dog knows.
The issue is the hypocrisy of building this monstrosity so close to Ground Zero and saying you are building cross cultural bridges. And demand that the victims acquiesce at the throne of tolerance.
That I call as bullshit.
It should tell the local wingnuts how far the GOP has fallen when they're biggest "star" is an Alaskan twit who doesn't read.
Funny how --
Muslim does not equal terrorist.
but Christian equals terrorist.
Weird.
Dude, if the Republicans have nothing else to do, then go fight your "war of ideas" against a religion. But stop pretending this has political traction. In the meantime, butt out and leave the local control to New York law (and Manhattan residents) and leave the governing to the party that has better things to do than fight other "civilizations" while they leave their own to decay and go ungoverned.
Funny how when there are no points to be made the lefties bring up Sarah Palin.
I call "squirrel!!1!!"
Ritmo,
I posted a link to that poll yesterday. I'm familiar with it. And I know that it shows that even in Manhattan, where support is highest, the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque doesn't pull in majority support.
I also know that the same poll indicates that the populations where construction workers will be pulled from (Staten Island and the city's Hispanic population) are those who are most opposed to the mosque.
(Follow your own link, and then follow the link in your own link to the poll results and the breakdown.)
You're right. Firefighters and police officers weren't the only people to die on September 11th. However, the firefighters and police officers who did die were the brothers, fathers, and friends of the construction workers who'll be expected to build the mosque.
Now I'm wondering just how far, wide and deep your obsession with Palin runs Ritmo. :)
Outrage, of course, is invariably the fault of the targets of the outrage...
Not always. In this case, though, obviously that's a "yes".
But the blame for the outrage isn't even the point. The point is that when you're building a center aimed at "outreach", the obvious first step is to refrain from pissing off the people you're reaching out to. That the Cordoba folks refused to take this elementary first step proves that they are either (a) idiots or (b) not interested in outreach. The history of their backers suggests (b), of course.
Your response, of course, is "oh, they're *trying* to outreach, it is just that Americans are horrible bigots". Which is just silly.
No poll has been taken of the FDNY and the NYPD, but you can bet all the money in your bank account that the city's rank and file cops and firemen are heavily against the project and see it as a betrayal.
Right. Because being a cop or firefighter means that you need to oppose religious tolerance. Ok.
They have a right to their intolerant opinion like anyone else. No more no less. Why you can't allow the residents as a whole to speak and have final say on it is interesting, but not in a way that I presume has merit.
JAL - Bullshit...as usual.
Insensitivity aside, my point is this: Stop denigrating ALL Muslims because of the bad things only a few are involved in.
One out of every four people on the planet are of the Islamic faith.
It's a losing cause and will do nothing but create huge problems for everybody.
And...as for this inane comment: "You show yourself as being devoid of substance. Maybe there's someone there, but probably only your dog knows."
You really have the balls to post something like that...after referencing and obviously supporting a thoroughly ridiculous comment via your fat fuck radio hero?
Yeah...right.
How does it hurt America, our freedoms, our collective will as a people and everything we stand for as an exeptional country with the highest ideals if we allow this community center to be built?
Our collective will is that the mosque not be built there. So obviously, yes, building it there is an affront to our collective will.
Do they have the right to build it there? Sure. Everybody has the right to be an asshole.
Ritmo wrote:
"And Youngblood might want to learn about how pluralities work."
Nah. You just need to actually read the poll that you cited.
Rubber Chicken:
Palin leads the base/rump. This is the only thing she has found that has traction. She's your Joan of Arc, and because she has no brain or any capacity for informed opinion, she's the ideal message bearer for a the Republican-perfected War of Civilizations TM meme. God knows she doesn't know her ass from a credit default swap.
I don't give a shit about Palin. You asked who brought this to the attention of the country or how she figures into it. You asked, I answered. Your discomfort with that inconvenient answer doesn't make me somehow obsessed with her.
3 points to me from Jeremy's 5:29 comment.
"Right. Because being a cop or firefighter means that you need to oppose religious tolerance. Ok."
No, you dumbfuck.
It means that they're not too excited about people proselytizing from the rubble of the World Trade Center. (That image was in the title of one of Feisal Abdul Rauf's books, by the way.)
Discussion over, Youngblood. You lost. More Manhattanites support than oppose. Arbitrarily requiring a majority instead of a plurality (especially in a situation where a large number have a right and an expectation to go undecided) is your own problem. And your own fascination.
Funny how when there are no points to be made the lefties bring up Sarah Palin.
That's a different game, JAL.
Revenant
Our collective will is that the mosque not be built there.
Are you sure about that?
It's in NYC. I think NYC has first say on this and from what I hear they support it. I mean, sure, if they put it to a vote and the NYC residents say no - then so be it.
Ritmo,
Leave the statistics to people who understand them. You clearly don't.
"Right. Because being a cop or firefighter means that you need to oppose religious tolerance. Ok."
No, you dumbfuck.
It means that they're not too excited about people proselytizing from the rubble of the World Trade Center.
In one fell swoop, Youngblood denies that intolerance and agrees that intolerance is to blame.
(And he called me a dumbfuck, but that might be a projection given his obvious incoherence).
Youngblood,
Nate Silver called. He asked you for an example of which of his statistics you believe you have superior understanding of than I do.
Matt wrote:
"It's in NYC. I think NYC has first say on this and from what I hear they support it."
Then you heard wrong.
New Yorkers opposed the construction of the mosque 52-31% a month ago.
Since then, a lot has come out about Feisal Abdul Rauf, and the uknown sources of funding for the mosque have become a major political issue.
While it's theoretically possible that these issues have generated more support for the construction of the mosque, it's doubtful. I suspect we'll see a new poll shortly, and then we'll know more.
If you heard that New Yorkers support this, then you heard wrong.
Revenant said..."Do they have the right to build it there? Sure. Everybody has the right to be an asshole."
And yet another tea bagger bigot weighs in.
More Manhattanites support than oppose.
The majority of Manhattanites do not support the construction of the mosque -- 36% oppose, 18% are undecided. The majority of Manhattanites do not oppose the construction of the mosque.
Both of those statements are true. The statement "Manhattanites Support Mosque Near Ground Zero" is true only in the sense that it would be true so long as more than one resident of Manhattan supported construction of the mosque.
That being said, when the best argument for popular support that the mosque defenders can muster is "sure, most Americans oppose it, and most of New York state opposes it, and most of New York city approaches it, but only slightly less than half of people in the *borough* support it"... well what counter-argument is even necessary?
Matt
> Wow, it seems you really do think we are at war with the entire islamic world
No, and however much you try to pigeonhole me, you will fail.
> you claim we are waving a white flag because we are allowing a building that happens to be one among many in the area?
Bin Laden said in his confession video that he did this to spread Islam. If this comes off, he can claim that there is even a mosque at ground zero. Probably shouting allah akbar a few times, too.
And do you have any idea what Cordoba means? Psst, it is celebrating an Islamic victory over Christians. I mean it really is an in your face act, putting it there.
> What do you want? A 100 year war?
I want us to continue fighting until THEY surrender.
> Should we start shipping Muslims back to the middle east?
Yes stating we should not build a mosque at ground zero leads directly to that. Genius!
> I view it more as we [or NY anyway] are maybe trying to grow up for once and heal these wounds.
Um, the majority of New Yorkers are against this.
> I would say, instead, it would be like some Evangelicals building a Church in Hiroshima.
I am sorry, but we didn’t bomb japan to spread Christianity.
Jeremy
> You need to pick yourself up a dictionary if you think someone referring to another as a moron means that they "hate" them.
Calling a whole group of people morons generally does. Moron.
Big Mike said..."3 points to me from Jeremy's 5:29 comment."
You get points now...for calling your own president a bastard?
Who's keeping score: Glenn Beck?
Asshole.
Ritmo,
You've stopped making sense.
What did Nate Silver have to do with the Quinnipiac University poll that both you and I are referring to.
Here it is, by the way:
Click through to Quinippiac University Poll.
Are you sure about that?
It's in NYC. I think NYC has first say on this and from what I hear they support it.
58% of New Yorkers oppose it. That's compared to 54% of the rest of the country.
I don't know where you "heard" that New Yorkers support it. I can only assume you don't know any. :)
Here is where Revenant launches his epic war against a single word: More.
More Manhattanites support than oppose.
That's your conservative's idea of an argument, folks. A war against a religion, a war against language. Refudiate anything that gets in the way.
Althouse: it's not wrong for the community to ask: Why are you making this choice? Why are you doing something that feels so painful to us?
Sometimes people are entitled to their pain and sometimes they're just expressing their worst and deepest biases.
A few decades back some white people were offended when a black person tried to drink from their water fountain or sit with them in the front of the bus.
We didn't tell such whites they had a right to their pain. We rather suggested they ought to re-examine why they felt the way they did.
A.W. said..."Calling a whole group of people morons generally does. Moron."
Sorry, but once again, you really need to refine your comments.
I read articles every day that refer to people doing ridiculous things, saying ridiculous things, and in the case of the tea baggers...believing, saying and doing ridiculous things.
I think they're all morons...but I don't "hate" any of them.
You're a birther, aren't you?
Oh! Looky here! Silver and I agree:
Opinions about the proposed mosque range from 46 - 36 percent support among Manhattan voters to 73 - 14 percent opposition in Staten Island, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
All Youngblood had to do was read the second paragraph! You'd think it wouldn't trouble him to get all the way past the first one to find it.
Given that a New York borough has about as much population (and exponentially more wealth) as a dozen typical red state towns, I'd say each one gets to consider itself a community.
You know, each one of them used to be distinct counties.
Why aren't the locals denying they're birthers?
Anybody want to take a wild guess...??
Ritmo Brasileiro said..."All Youngblood had to do was read the second paragraph! You'd think it wouldn't trouble him to get all the way past the first one to find it."
You're kidding, right?
That's not the way it's done here.
But the cops and firefighters aren't happy with it!
What's next? Are we going to poll the little children and see how they feel? I mean, how many interest groups do you have to throw out there before we get to focus on the one that matters?
Just wondering.
Make that several dozen red state towns.
How about this: Build a stock exchange and world trade center in the middle of Oklahoma (or wherever), attract the capital and millions of people to live there that New York did, become the envy of the world, and then promulgate and enforce anti-mosque zoning laws. Does that sound about fair?
Jeremy spoke in class today…
> I read articles every day that refer to people doing ridiculous things, saying ridiculous things, and in the case of the tea baggers...believing, saying and doing ridiculous things.
Yeah, like it’s a bad idea to go into massive debt. Or Obamacare is unconstitutional. Or maybe you should read your bills before you pass them. They are sooooo stooopid!
> I think they're all morons...but I don't "hate" any of them.
Actually calling them all morons means you hate them.
> You're a birther, aren't you?
Nope. And if you bothered to read what I wrote, you would already know that. but hey, stereotyping. I am shocked.
> You get points now...for calling your own president a bastard?
Well, I suggested drinking game based on how idiotic you behaved, but I guess there was concerns about alcohol poisoning.
By the way, love the tolerant language there. If Obama was born out of wedlock, I would never call him a bastard. I might consider calling his father one.
But I suppose you would hold the innocent child responsible for the sins of his father. Nice.
Big Mike
I don’t get it. what is the significance of Obama being born out of wedlock, if true?
btw in unrelated news, cnn claims that wyclef jean, the rapper, wants to be president of haiti.
you know, because things worked out so well when they chose a celebrity to be governor of California.
Approprieate wv: cobeatic
Do you people have jobs? Because I don't and I still don't have even near the amount of time and energy you have to bicker back and forth like little pussies.
Can we put up a theme park in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Say with a military theme? Would that be rude? What if we buy some land and put up a giant American flag at the spot that the big fat bomb landed? I am sure they have some sort of monument to that over there so the exact spot might not be available, but say right next door?
"All Youngblood had to do was read the second paragraph! You'd think it wouldn't trouble him to get all the way past the first one to find it."
Ritmo, you dumbfuck, I did that yesterday. And, also, I did it a over a half hour before you made this comment. (Look at my 5:27 post.)
What's your point exactly?
Are you going to start making sense eventually? Or are you simply going to continue asserting that I haven't read things even though the evidence indicates that I have?
I heard there's an opportunity for construction jobs downtown, Palladian. But only if the Muslims get their way.
Whatever. Palladian's right. Bickering (and calling me "dumbfuck") won't change the fact that more Manhattanites support than oppose the laws and decisions of their zoning boards. It won't change the fact that you don't want to understand that fact or its significance either. And if someone can't see that, how are they going to figure out how a functioning economy works?
I'm off to buy some etchings.
Ritmo,
Good night, dumbfuck!
But I do wonder what's on Youngblood's menu for dinner. Maybe "dumbfuck" souffle.
Exactly my point. When Christians are involved, you immediately see all the nuances.
When Christians are killing innocent Christians and anyone else who gets in the way as a central tenet of their faith then I'll agree not to see the nuances.
Christianity pretty much gave up religious wars by and large with the Peace of Westphalia almost half a millenia ago. Hopefully it won't take Islam another 400-500 years to catch up.
How about we build a Crusader Tavern and Strip Club across from the new mosque? That wouldn't be rude would it?
I heard there's a huge market for misinterpreting statistics on the web and conveying it with vituperative language, Youngblood. Perhaps you could upgrade your status from "starving" if others could only see that talent.
Good thing smallpox and Manifest Destiny took care of what the Peace of Westphalia didn't, Hoosier.
How convenient. For the Christians. If only the natives could have seen all the nuance and such.
As for the "lily white" comment regarding little Timmy...are you actually saying the bigotry related to Muslims and others of the Islamic faith is not in any way related to the color of their skin?
You tell me. What color are Muslims? I wasn't aware there was a skin pigment requirement for becoming a member of that religion. Unless of course you are implying that there is.
Jeremy at 6:03 gives me two more points!
Funny how --
Muslim does not equal terrorist.
but Christian equals terrorist.
Or take it a step further:
Piss Christ = Edgy art, freedom of expression.
Draw Mohammed Day = culturally insensitive, bigoted, racist.
Although it is refreshing that the Left has finally found a group of religious fundamentalists they found common cause to embrace.
Good thing smallpox and Manifest Destiny took care of what the Peace of Westphalia didn't, Hoosier.
Enter Ritmo flogging his strawman yet again.
A.W.
> Al Queda didn't bomb us to convert us to Islam.
> Who cares what bin Laden thinks? Why do you care?
> Just what do you think will happen when this center is built? Will they convert everyone in NY? It is laughable.
> I am not pigeonholing you. I am calling it like I see it and you act as though we at war with all of Islam. We are not. Even Bush knew that.
> I'd like to see a link that shows a greater number of New Yorkers are opposed to this. This is the one thing you have written that might have some creedence. As I said, put it to a vote. If the folks say no then so be it. But money tends to speak louder than votes.
Here is where Revenant launches his epic war against a single word: More. More Manhattanites support than oppose.
I didn't take issue with that statement. I criticized you for saying "Manhattanites Support Mosque Near Ground Zero", which is at best misleading and at worst a flat-out lie. Sorry if that was unclear.
We didn't tell such whites they had a right to their pain. We rather suggested they ought to re-examine why they felt the way they did.
We realize that your friends and neighbors were murdered by Muslims. But when a group of Muslims with a name chosen to reflect Muslim conquest of the West sets up shop right next to the site of the murders, specifically BECAUSE it is right next to the site of the murders, and this bothers you? Then you need to realize that it is really *you* who is at fault.
Did I get it right? Can I be a Democrat now?
Quinnipiac poll says:
Fifty-two percent of the respondents said they did not want the mosque to be built at all, 31 percent are in favor of it, and 17 percent are undecided.
Broken down by borough, Manhattan was the most in favor of the mosque, with only 36 percent of residents against it. On the other end of the spectrum was Staten Island, where 73 percent of respondents were opposed.
There you have it. As far as this poll is concerned if you are a conservative then Manhatten doesn't count. If you are a liberal then the rest of NY doesn't count.
I am calling it like I see it and you act as though we at war with all of Islam. We are not. Even Bush knew that.
When one looks at the facts (and explosions) on the ground, the ground being from Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Philipines, Malaysia, Kashmir, India, Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan (pick a stan), it certainly seems that a significant portion of Islam is at war with somone.
State and private persecution of atheists is either legally mandated, or tolerated by the authorities, in every country with a Muslim majority. It was widespread in every such country as well.
So when people ask "do you think we're at war with Islam", my answer is "I think they're at war with me". :)
@Matt, you have the liberal position correctly stated, but if 52% of the totality of New York City is opposed then isn't slightly more correct to say that Manhattan is outvoted, vice saying that "Manhattan doesn't count"?
So when people ask "do you think we're at war with Islam", my answer is "I think they're at war with me". :)
I'm curious why the left has this reflex defense of Islam despite its current record on its treatment of women, gays or in Rev's case, atheists.
(actually I know the answer but I'd like to see one of the resident lefties have the cajones to admit it)
That was the title of the article, not my own words.
Muslims, especially Muslim clerics, continue to be amazed by the utter permissiveness of liberal Americans - that they would invite their executioners to set up shop right in their own back yard.
More, they look forward with great anticipation to their calls to prayer echoing throughout lower Manhattan five times a day, and seven days a week - echoing across the Hudson and East rivers until Mohammad's work is done.
And it's good to know that Hoosier can always cry "uncle" by claiming a foul on the narrowest of technicalities.
Again, I somehow seem to notice that non-Christian Indians were relentlessly pushed off their lands at the hands of Christians motivated by a militant theology. He can quibble about how civilized or how un-Christian it was with its practitioners.
Muslims, especially Muslim clerics, continue to be amazed by the utter permissiveness of liberal Americans
I believe the term is useful idiots.
That was the title of the article, not my own words.
Repeating a false statement opens you up to criticism for making a false statement. Life's hard that way.
Dumbfuck,
You're still here! I thought you were going to go off and buy some etchings?
Muslims, especially Muslim clerics, continue to be amazed by the utter permissiveness of liberal Americans
"I believe the term is useful idiots."
And it's a pretty useless idiot who fails to realize that the kind of intolerance, that only despotism can make use of, is what gives rise to Islamism in the first place.
Repeating a false statement opens you up to criticism for making a false statement. Life's hard that way.
Life's harder on people who don't argue in good faith.
You're still here! I thought you were going to go off and buy some etchings?
First I had to feed myself. Not allowing oneself to go starving (like Youngblood does) is like that.
Again, I somehow seem to notice that non-Christian Indians were relentlessly pushed off their lands at the hands of Christians motivated by a militant theology. He can quibble about how civilized or how un-Christian it was with its practitioners.
Well since you pulled the Wiki card lets take a look at you link shall we?
Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of Manifest Destiny:
1.the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
2.the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the U.S.; and
3.the destiny under God to accomplish this work.[13]
So while you flog away at the theological aspect of Manifest Destiny, doing God's work came in last with the secular items taking priority. See Ritmo, unlike Richard I's crusdading armies, the Westward push was more about expanding the country than converting the barbarian heathen.
That was pretty weaksauce even for you.
And it's a pretty useless idiot who fails to realize that the kind of intolerance, that only despotism can make use of, is what gives rise to Islamism in the first place.
Islamism by practice is about as intolerant as you get. Then again useful idiots don't grasp that.
Reading further:
The origin of the first theme, later known as American Exceptionalism, was often traced to America's Puritan heritage, particularly John Winthrop's famous "City upon a Hill" sermon of 1630, in which he called for the establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World...
Sometimes it takes a while before the secularists can accurately defang a mutated theology that is no less problematic, despite its adornment in secular garb.
Islamism by practice is about as intolerant as you get. Then again useful idiots don't grasp that.
The only place where Islamism even comes close to achieving primacy in force of law is Saudi Arabia, or perhaps Iran. So why don't you oil-lovers ever pick fights with the country that started that whole rivalry, then? I mean, it's not like there's another Bush in the works (in the pipeline?) you have to worry about cozying up to the royals. Is there?
Sometimes it takes a while before the secularists can accurately defang a mutated theology that is no less problematic, despite its adornment in secular garb.
Ritmo, if you want to hang on to the theory that the Westward expansion of America was the cowboy version of the Crusades then you go boy.
Someone you just have to let the crazy guy yell on his soapbox.
Ritmo, if you want to hang on to the theory that the Westward expansion of America was the cowboy version of the Crusades then you go boy.
I daresay that if secular Muslims, inspired by previous Muslim conquests, went on about invading and conquering decadent Westerners, you wouldn't be so generous in your absolution of the history behind it.
"First I had to feed myself. Not allowing oneself to go starving (like Youngblood does) is like that."
Haha! I see what you're doing here. You're taking a self-deprecating joke from my profile and you're pretending that it's the literal truth!
Clever!
The only place where Islamism even comes close to achieving primacy in force of law is Saudi Arabia, or perhaps Iran. So why don't you oil-lovers ever pick fights with the country that started that whole rivalry, then?
Now here comes the blood for oil schtick.
Let me know when you approach something of a point. I'm going to make a drink.
I daresay that if secular Muslims, inspired by previous Muslim conquests, went on about invading and conquering decadent Westerners, you wouldn't be so generous in your absolution of the history behind it.
Strawman falls apart. Picks up projection stick and swings wildly.
Remember to drink away your discomfort over being reminded of how cozy you'd like us to be with the Saudis. Hope that doesn't trouble you too much. It's certainly inspiring to many an Islamist terrorist!
Remember to drink away your discomfort over being reminded of how cozy you'd like us to be with the Saudis. Hope that doesn't trouble you too much. It's certainly inspiring to many an Islamist terrorist!
Well I see after making a delicious vodka tonic you're still in projection mode. How about actually constructing an argument that has a point?
You know that's kind of interesting though because Saudi Arabia, practices sharia law, which is right up the alley of the Islamists so one would think that our cozy relations with the Saudi fat cats would engender us some goodwill.
Maybe if we just nuked the Jews they'd warm up.
Heh. That's so damn ignorant it speaks for itself.
That you don't know whether or why al Qaeda is opposed to the royal Saudi family rather says it all.
Keep fightin'. Just make sure you know who's who.
That you don't know whether or why al Qaeda is opposed to the royal Saudi family rather says it all.
That you can't see obvious sarcasm says a lot more.
You really are off your game. Maybe you should take a rest day.
And it's a pretty useless idiot who fails to realize that the kind of intolerance, that only despotism can make use of, is what gives rise to Islamism in the first place.
Meanwhile, back in reality, Islamism arose in Islamic-majority nations where Islam was not merely tolerated, but in many cases mandated as the official state religion.
Ritmo wrote:
Better answer: The one who promotes the idea of a War of Civilizations.
It's Palin (cf. her idiotic "refudiate" tweet that set this whole shitstorm off). And now the other cons figured out that since the right isn't in the mood for actual answers to the incredible number of real problems plaguing the country, they might as well run with the Big Fight against the Underhanded Muslims.
How come in liberal NYC the VAST majority of people polled also oppose this? Are they suddenly turning conservative or something?
Fine. I'll take a rest, assured in your intimate knowledge of geopolitical affairs.
While we're at it, can Revenant take a day off while he tackles the difference between theocracy and a materialistic despotism?
Now, how about Muslims reciprocate and start building some churches in Saudi Arabia?
Oh, those outer boroughs are sooooo enlightened and liberal!!!
Any of the rightists here actually been to New York? A show of hands, maybe?
I mean, I know that being an armchair warrior doesn't require an intimate knowledge of the battlefield, (or even a clue as to what's really being fought over). But I'm just curious.
I daresay that if secular Muslims, inspired by previous Muslim conquests, went on about invading and conquering decadent Westerners, you wouldn't be so generous in your absolution of the history behind it.
I'd be happy if the secular Muslims in question actually existed. :)
Oh, those outer boroughs are sooooo enlightened and liberal!!!
Amusingly, Ritmo just got done whining about people not arguing in good faith.
Any of the rightists here actually been to New York? A show of hands, maybe?
Actually I was there the year prior to 9/11. Too big, noisy and crowded for me but to each their own.
"Anyway, on America's greatness, i will let Fred Thompson take over: "This country has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than all the other nations in the history of the world combined, and I'm tired of people feeling like they've got to apologize for America."
Of course when Fred had the chance to shed some blood for this country, he had other priorities.
Too big, noisy and crowded for me
Me, too.
Hoosier Daddy
When one looks at the facts (and explosions) on the ground... it certainly seems that a significant portion of Islam is at war with somone.
Okay, so you at least admit you believe we are at war with Islam. Thanks for being honest unlike A.W. who won't take that stand.
BTW you are still wrong. Yes, we are at war. And yes those we are at war with are Muslim. But it doesn't mean all Muslims are our enemy. If it were the case then you better build a bunker and hide because there are a few billion Muslims.
I'm not about hiding from anyone. Nor declaring war on an entire culture or religion.
But it will take a long time for what you're saying to sink into the skulls of this crowd, Matt. For the right, it is damn near impossible to distinguish between a culture or a religion and the thoughts of every adherent of it. The myth of cultural uniformity is somewhat of a given to them.
"Too big, noisy and crowded for me but to each their own."
Translation: "Too many colored people".
Okay, so you at least admit you believe we are at war with Islam.
That's not what he said. He said a significant portion of Islam is at war with us.
He said a significant portion of Islam is at war...
I didn't know a religion could declare or fight a war. What else can a religion do? Can it order a tuna salad sandwich or room service? Can it provoke Revenant into a tickle-fight?
The imam proposing this mosque is questionable at best. He thinks that there should be shariah in America. He not only supported , but helped fund the flotillah that tried to break the blockade in Israel, called the US an accessory to the 9/11 attacks and refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Why should this imam be building a mosque in the city.
I do see why so many libs support this, by the way since, other than implementing shariah in the US, these are default liberal positions (ie, israel is the imperialist power, 9/11 was an inside job). If these were secularist muslims proposing a mosque, it still probably would be opposed by many, but why should this particular imam be allowed to build anything in the US? For all the talk of how we are not at war with Islam, he seems to espouse the type of Islam that we are at war with in his actions.
Is his support of Hamas not cause to partially question his bona fides as a secular muslim?
BTW you are still wrong. Yes, we are at war. And yes those we are at war with are Muslim. But it doesn't mean all Muslims are our enemy.
I didn't say they were. I simply pointed out numerous hotspots around the globe where Muslims are either engaged in war, insurrection or terrorism with someone. The Muslims in Chechnya, for example aren't my problem, they're Russia's. They'll be our problem when they come over here and start shooting up our schools.
At some point you might want to consider that those 'few billion' Muslims need to actually take a stand against the supposed teeny tiny portion of fanatics who have 'usurped and perverted' thier religion. Unless of course the 'accepted wisdom' is wrong and that teeny tiny portion is a bit bigger than you want to admit.
Ritmo wrote:
I didn't know a religion could declare or fight a war. What else can a religion do? Can it order a tuna salad sandwich or room service? Can it provoke Revenant into a tickle-fight?
<br. A religion cannot declare a war, but proponets of a religion can. In Islam it's called a jihad. In fact Islam literally means submission to god. And that submission to god also extends to non believers, as in it is the duty of proponents of Islam to force non believers to submit to Islam, THEN there will be peace.
Thanks for the clarification, jr.
Translation: "Too many colored people".
It takes a special asshole to read that but then again, there are a lot of those on the left.
I didn't know a religion could declare or fight a war.
Well alert the media -- it turns out there's something Ritmo didn't know.
Everyone (starting with Jeremy) appears to have misinterpreted my previous comment, so let me clear it up:
That Mosque will never be built.
Clear?
Matt
> Al Queda didn't bomb us to convert us to Islam.
Watch the bin laden confession video. He says it exactly.
> Who cares what bin Laden thinks? Why do you care?
Because I want him dispirited. Basic psy-ops, you tard.
> Just what do you think will happen when this center is built? Will they convert everyone in NY?
AQ will use it as a recruiting tool, tard. Why do you think the place is named to commemorate Islamic victory in Europe? You know for a guy who claims to be able to differentiate good and bad Muslims so well, you seem awful immune to any specific facts about this mosque.
> I am not pigeonholing you. I am calling it like I see it and you act as though we at war with all of Islam.
Shorter Matt “I am no pigeonholing you. Now let me pigeonhole you.”
Obviously you are so bigoted on the subject facts mean nothing to you. Which is ironic.
> I'd like to see a link that shows a greater number of New Yorkers are opposed to this.
Its been all over this thread slowpoke.
> As I said, put it to a vote.
All of New York City or all of the United States, you lose. The only place you even get a plurality is in Manhattan itself.
If it makes you feel better, Jeremy, I'm all for a mosque at Ground Zero.
New York deserves every drop of misery it receives.
If it makes you feel better, Jeremy, I'm all for a mosque at Ground Zero.
New York deserves every drop of misery it receives.
Ritmo wrote:
"Remember to drink away your discomfort over being reminded of how cozy you'd like us to be with the Saudis. Hope that doesn't trouble you too much. It's certainly inspiring to many an Islamist terrorist!"
As if the Clinton administration wasn't also cozy to the Saudis. And seriously what hasn't been an inspiration for many an islamist terrorist. If it's our support of Israel or our support of the Saudis or our support of whatever, or being the great satan.
I'll note that while the Saudis may ultimately be our enemies, Al Qaeda is not an arm of the Saudis, and in fact the majority of the hijackers were from Yemen, not Saudi arabia. But be that as it may, in the late 90's Al Qaeda pronounced a jihad against us because we set foot in Saudi Arabia. Why? Because we were containing Iraq. So I'll note that if we go to war with Iraq we embolden the terrorists, yet if we don't go to war with Iraq and merely contain them we also embolden Al Qaeda. Maybe at a certain point we should recognize that it may not matter what they think of our actions, and we shouldn't have to tailor our actions to assuage people who will not be assuaged.
But I thought all the libs were saying that containment was working? and they wanted us to start the whole inspections process all over again. wouldnt' that mean that we'd need to send in troops most likely through SA again so as to maintain contaiment?
If you are going to hold Bush accountable for his war with Iraq and his coziness to the Saudi's as the cause of terrorism why not similarly hold Clinton and the liberals view that containment was the answer as well as the Clintons similar coziness with the Saudi's as the cause of terrorism.
In other words, no matter what, it's always us. Our policies. Why can't we respond in kind to THEIR policies? Why does Al Qaeda have a say whether we are going to war with Iraq or containing Iraq or cozying up to Saudi Arabia or not? I'm getting tired of this one way view of foreign policy where all actions emanate from America's actions, as if they are done in a vaccuum and all our enemies simply respond to our aggression,
Jeremy:
So now you and the fat radio fuck are comparing the plane and bomb that killed over 200,000 Japanese...to a
Mosque?
You're a fucking moron...and so is fatso
It's about the sensitivity of the issue. Sure the example is perhaps extreme, in that as bad as 9/11 was it wasn't a nuclear attack. But since the mosque could be built anywhere in the city why is this imam demanding that it be built at ground zero. And while you guys keep saying that to even question any placement of said mosque is simply bigotry against muslims, why does your side do no questioning about the particular imam who is pushing for this mosquen and his ties to terrorist groups, not to mention his suggestion that we were complicit in the attack. Do you think how a person who holds said views might be considered incencitive to those that died on 9/11. Why are you libs so completely incapable to looking into this imam's history and making critical judgement. I personally don't want anyone who can't condemn Hamas as a terrorist group to have his hand in the creation of a mosque especially one that is so close to the 9/11 memorial. If you could show that this was a peaceful imam with no nebulous political ties, that would be a different story. yet your side can't and isn't even asking whether it's wise to question in any way his ties. In fact suggesting that any questioning along the lines already mentioned is simply bigotry.
So for all your talk of people being morons, it is you who is behaving like the useful idiot. Which is so apropos of the left in general.
Wha--?
"AQ will use it as a recruiting tool, tard. Why do you think the place is named to commemorate Islamic victory in Europe?"
Well, (a) al Qaeda explicitly hates any brand of Islam outside of Wahabbi, and would more than likely bomb the crap out of this mosque if given the chance. Have you read the Cordoba website? It's all about interfaith cooperation, moderating and reinterpreting shariah law, women's rights, and plenty of other things al Qaeda is against. It looks to have about as much to do with AQ as the United Church of Christ has with the Hutaree Militia.
I also just checked Wikipedia on the imam. He does state the fact that the US has backed and still backs Islamic dictatorships. Also the historical fact that the US armed and trained bin Laden, and that our government's actions have resulted in plenty of deaths in the world. Do these contribute to terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks? How could they not? He doesn't say the US deserved it, or that the government planned it. He says outright that the US didn't deserve it. I get the sense that he doesn't believe anyone deserves to die.
And the only sources it gives for his comments about Hamas are the New York Post and WorldNetDaily, which are hardly reputable journalistic outfits, so I take that with a grain of salt.
(b) It also happens to be named for a place where Jewish culture and learning thrived in the Middle Ages, and which usually had good relations with its Christian neighbors. You might as well say it represents Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of the Jews and Muslims, because Cordoba was their base of operations.
(c) Frankly, I'm having trouble seeing how this isn't just a kneejerk reaction built on Islamophobia.
Of course, if all you read are right-wing blogs, I can see how that can be reinforced.
"Why? Because we were containing Iraq."
Say -what-? Al Qaeda HATED Saddam, and the feeling was mutual. He was a secular dictator, and al Qaeda hates any government not ruled by Taliban-style shariah.
They were against US bases in Saudi Arabia because they thought that having Americans so close to Mecca and Medina, the two most sacred sites in Islam, was desecrating the land. Also, a few problems with our alliance with Israel.
"But I thought all the libs were saying that containment was working?"
It -was- working. Saddam was not a threat to the United States, Britain, or anyone else. It's a completely different issue from our response to al Qaeda -- which, you should note, most liberals supported before Bush cut and run from Afghanistan.
"In other words, no matter what, it's always us. Our policies."
Sadly, we don't live in a bubble, and our government's actions do have consequences. It does not absolve anyone of responsibility, nor does it mean we cannot respond when Americans are killed. But it's never wise to ignore historical fact, and frankly, we haven't exactly done much to convince the Islamic that they're wrong about us, not just that we're stronger. The hypocrisy is galling, too; the very same people who armed Saddam and bin Laden in the 80's - Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc - now pretend they had nothing to do with it.
Besides, as a Christian, I believe in the importance of humility and confessing sins. They are both vital to obtaining forgiveness and peace of mind. And I definitely prefer it to the quite convenient Republican position of "We're never wrong."
("we" being the Republicans, conservatives, and conveniently, the US government when Republicans happen to be in charge)
Alex Scott wrote:
Well, (a) al Qaeda explicitly hates any brand of Islam outside of Wahabbi, and would more than likely bomb the crap out of this mosque if given the chance. Have you read the Cordoba website? It's all about interfaith cooperation, moderating and reinterpreting shariah law, women's rights, and plenty of other things al Qaeda is against. It looks to have about as much to do with AQ as the United Church of Christ has with the Hutaree Militia.
Or, it could be a front like many such mosques are, put in place by dupes who by the peaceful rhetoric espoused by the leaders who then funnel money to terrorist groups they support like Hamas. At the very least, isn't it worth looking into where the money is coming from all of this and get further into who this imam is and who he's associated with?
I also just checked Wikipedia on the imam. He does state the fact that the US has backed and still backs Islamic dictatorships. Also the historical fact that the US armed and trained bin Laden, and that our government's actions have resulted in plenty of deaths in the world. Do these contribute to terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks? How could they not? He doesn't say the US deserved it, or that the government planned it. He says outright that the US didn't deserve it. I get the sense that he doesn't believe anyone deserves to die.
Can we please get over this notion that we trained OBL? THat never happened. WE trained mujahadeen in Afghanistan. OBL was not one of them. Even then he was against our involvement there and was trying to recruit his own freedom fighters so that HE and his organization could be said to have driven the russians from Afghanistan. So it's not a historical fact, it's an urban legend. And any way, if the US did support the mujahadeen against the Russians, why would that be an example of a slight against us? Were the mujahadeen the Taliban at that time? Were we not helping them get the Russians out? And do you really think that Al Qaeda has a problem with dictatorships because they are dictatorships? Al Qaeda has problems with countries if they don't toe the line islamically or don't properly respect Al Qaeda. OBL's beef with Saudi Arabia was not that they were a dictatorship, and he is no proponent of democracy. Rather, it was because the Saudi's were decadent and not sufficiently Muslim (if you can believe that) and because the Saudi's dared to cozy up to the US during the first Iraq war. HE offered to send troops to help quell Iraq and didn't want any non muslims involved. When they rebuffed him he decided to wage war against the decadent royal family. You'll note though that Iraq was a UN mission, thus though the majority of troops were the US's was sanctioned by the UN. (In other words it passed the global test). Surely OBL couldn't have a problem with that? But of course he did. Again, OBL doesn't care about our support of dictatorships because they are dicatorships, he cares because we are americans.
And the only sources it gives for his comments about Hamas are the New York Post and WorldNetDaily, which are hardly reputable journalistic outfits, so I take that with a grain of salt.
c'mon, thats a total copout. Surely you can disprove the suggestions of the NYP. What if the mosque is built and it comes to light that in fact the NYP was right all along, and you were a moron for not digging? Won't you feel really stupid then?
Map of worst terrorist attacks worldwide: 100 or more fatalities
Starts in 1921.
There seems to be a common thread.
Then of course, one can go to thereligionofpeace.com site ....
-cont-
"Say -what-? Al Qaeda HATED Saddam, and the feeling was mutual. He was a secular dictator, and al Qaeda hates any government not ruled by Taliban-style shariah.
They were against US bases in Saudi Arabia because they thought that having Americans so close to Mecca and Medina, the two most sacred sites in Islam, was desecrating the land. Also, a few problems with our alliance with Israel."
It doesn't matter whether he hated Iraq, he hated the US more. And what business is it of his whether Saudi Arabia allowed us to put boots on the ground there? Is he a ruler of Saudi Arabia? Is he the head of any state, or party to any negotiations either between us, Saudi Arabia or the UN? If not, then who cares if he's mad about our actions or our actions with Israel? Why do we have to change our policy to suit him?
"It -was- working. Saddam was not a threat to the United States, Britain, or anyone else. It's a completely different issue from our response to al Qaeda -- which, you should note, most liberals supported before Bush cut and run from Afghanistan."
It may have been working for containment purposes of Iraq though this is in fact a lie. Duelfler said that containment was in free fall and it was only a matter of time till they collapsed, as they were undermined from our "allies" on the security council. Further, Clinton apparently thought that containment wasn't working because he and congress passed the ILA in 1998 which called for regime change in Iraq, and the rationale was that so long as Sadaam was the leader of Iraq there will always be a danger, thus we should do all we can to undermine his regime. He then bombed Iraq for non compliance and all inspectors were removed. Not exactly an example of a stable or working containment. But no, I meant, if containment was working then explain why it caused OBL to wage a fatwah against us because of our involvement in the US. You keep talking about our policies causing them to hate us, yet the containment policy required us to send in troops which pissed off OBL enough for him to wage war against us. Would that be an example of a policy that caused them to attack us? So how is it that it's working? Also, you said most liberals supported an attack in Afghanistan (which is bullshit - libs were just giving lipservice, but we'll play along). But do you really think that a direct attack on the country that housed OBL and caused it to run to the hills wouldn't be a policy that would embolden terrorists? Why is THAT policy somehow exempt from causing a terrorist to react, or to increase the terrorist rolls? Simply because the libs support it? Are we not setting foot on muslim soil and occupying a muslim country? And you support that? You think that wouldn't piss off Al Qaeda?
If the principle is they hate us for our policies then maybe just maybe the policies you say that liberal support may also be policies for which they hate us. What then? Do you think we should not have gone into afghanistan? Or do you honestly believe that because YOU support the policy, that Al Qaeda therefore can't be angered by the policy.
So the city is cool with the 13th story Islamic cross cultural education and recruitment facility two blocks away from GZ that is being directed by a guy who believes that Sharia law (see previous link above) needs to come to Manhattan, and who is not saying where the money to build his GZ minaret is coming from ...
But the congregation of the modest little St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was crushed in the collapse of the Islamic terrorist attacked WTC, have no place of their own because of all those regulations affecting the area ...
Again, it's not the legal that's the issue, it's the hypocrisy and evil.
But.
I believe in justice. And time.
-cont again-
"Sadly, we don't live in a bubble, and our government's actions do have consequences. It does not absolve anyone of responsibility, nor does it mean we cannot respond when Americans are killed. But it's never wise to ignore historical fact, and frankly, we haven't exactly done much to convince the Islamic that they're wrong about us, not just that we're stronger. The hypocrisy is galling, too; the very same people who armed Saddam and bin Laden in the 80's - Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc - now pretend they had nothing to do with it."
And you seem to think that policies that you support have no consequences. They can't possibly hate us for invading Afghanistan because that's the good war. Do you really think that an Islamist looks at it that way? So then how come you think you're exempt when suggesting we should have invaded afghanistan as if that's not a policy they can respond to.
As to us arming Iraq in the 70's is it your position that we can't rectify a mistake? We were allies with the Russians and then we had a cold war, we bombed Japan and now we're allies. IF it was a mistake to arm Iraq, then is the suggestion that somehow we must never disarm Iraq? Didn't the ceasefire after the Iraq war change that relationship?
Again, it's the way you liberals damn us in all cases. Arming the dicator is bad, but disarming the dicator is bad. And seriously, which side did it's damndest to keep said dictator in power rather than us removing him,, up to and including sending in human shields. If muslims hate us for supporting dictators then wouldn't they hate us for the lefts policy, especially when they suggested that democracy could never occur in Iraq and what was needed was a new strongman. There goes that policy again.
Besides, as a Christian, I believe in the importance of humility and confessing sins. They are both vital to obtaining forgiveness and peace of mind. And I definitely prefer it to the quite convenient Republican position of "We're never wrong."
Excuse me, what sins are you saying we should confess to. Who was attacked on 9/11? Perhaps groups that attacked us seeking peace with us should honor the fact hat building a mosque on the 9/11 site might be insensitive to many and thus seek to put their mosque elsewhere. Yet of course they don't do so. Yet, somehow WE have to be the one's to accomodate them? There's something perverse there. But again, you should recognize that when you offer alternative policies, there are consequences to those as well, and they can hate us for those policies as well. And maybe as a christian you should ask for their forgiveness. Maybe the Taliban in Afghanistan are similarly the minutemen. Maybe your support of Afghanistan is as brutal and wrong as the evil neocons support of Iraq. I did after all read about an oil pipeline in afghanistan, which I'm sure is the REAL reason we're over there.
Alex
> Well, (a) al Qaeda explicitly hates any brand of Islam outside of Wahabbi, and would more than likely bomb the crap out of this mosque if given the chance.
Why would they fund it only to destroy it?
> Have you read the Cordoba website? It's all about interfaith cooperation,
Yeah, I am sure there are nice things on the KKK website about interracial cooperation, too. The name cordoba should clarify the confused.
> He does state the fact that the US has backed and still backs Islamic dictatorships.
Well, what exactly do you mean by backed? Nine times out of ten, when liberals say “backed” its either an unproven conspiracy theory, or its backed, as in failed to oppose. Which is funny because 1) Obama has actually bowed to the “king” of Saudi Arabia, 2) liberals also opposed us actually taking down the dictator in Iraq. So they don’t like us not opposing dictators, but they don’t like us opposing them, either. Seriously, make up your mind.
> Also the historical fact that the US armed and trained bin Laden
No we didn’t. we helped the native rebels, not the outsiders. And I challenge you to prove otherwise (hint: Michael moore is not a trustworthy source.)
> and that our government's actions have resulted in plenty of deaths in the world.
Yep. We killed Abu Musab al Zarqawi, for instance. And countless other terrorists.
> Do these contribute to terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks?
Oh, here we go with the usual “why they hate us” whine. As I said around 9/14 or so when this started, here’s a hint: the reason why they hate us, and the reason why you hate us, is two different things.
They hate us because 1) we are not Muslims, 2) we let our women have freedom, 3) don’t kill gay people, 4) don’t let the terrorists genocide the Jews, 5) let people speak freely even if it is blasphemous to them and 6) generally our culture is a sewer in their eyes. Its easy to argue for appeasement when you imagine that appeasement lines up with your agenda. Not so easy when you look at what they actually believe and say.
> He doesn't say the US deserved it
Nah, he just says it was chickens coming home to roost, more or less. You know, like you just did, based on an idiot reading of history. Blaming the victim is wrong, whether the subject is rape or terrorism.
Oh, by the way, one of their explicit goals is to regain all “Muslim” lands, which includes… Cordoba. Funny that.
> I get the sense that he doesn't believe anyone deserves to die.
Well, he certainly doesn’t want anyone to touch a hair on the head of a hamas member.
> And the only sources it gives for his comments about Hamas are the New York Post and WorldNetDaily, which are hardly reputable journalistic outfits
I won’t vouch for WND, but given that the New York Times is only now admitting that the story of the tea partiers shouting the n-word was not true, five months later, I will take that as seriously as it deserves to be. The New York Post is more trustworthy than most.
> It also happens to be named for a place where Jewish culture and learning thrived in the Middle Ages, and which usually had good relations with its Christian neighbors.
Lol, right they named it that for the Jews. And of course they were subjugating their Christians neighbors and treating them as second class citizens. I always love it when liberals, having criticized us for supposedly siding with oppressors, are so quick to defend oppression. You are the spiritual successor of those who claimed that slaves in the American south were “happy.” Again make up your mind. Are you for or against dictatorship and oppression? Are you for or against religious freedom?
And yeah ... my father was born in a house on 7th Ave which was torn down when they put in the subway. I grew up outside the City with relatives in the City.
Not a city girl, but my mom and dad met and married there.
So some of us have roots from before you were born.
Alex
(cont—sorry for the repeat posts, I am trying to delete them now)
> Frankly, I'm having trouble seeing how this isn't just a kneejerk reaction built on Islamophobia
Of course, because you know you are losing the debate, so you do what liberals do all the time these days: call the other side bigots.
> Say -what-? Al Qaeda HATED Saddam, and the feeling was mutual.
Actually the supposed suffering of the Iraqi people were specificially cited by bin laden in his fatwahs. But please explain to me why Saddam and AQ would never decide that the enemy of their enemy was their friend. Its hilarious to listen to.
I could see you in WWII: “But Hitler hates Asians. Why would Germany ally with the Japanese?”
> Also, a few problems with our alliance with Israel.
Yeah, as in we oppose a second holocaust. But I am sure you blame them for the endless murders committed against them too. Basically if there is a bad guy in the world, you side with them, and then bitch that we side with dictators. You’re a bad liberal cliché.
all about interfaith cooperation
And in Arabic outside the US he clearly states he does not believe in interfaith dialogue.
You can choose to believe what you want, but the guy is a Sharia law pushing "modern" Muslim.
And you can bet your sweet bippy that it isn't going to be the pap from a Congregational Church with sermons from the latest NY Times in the services for the faithful. (Maybe for the visiting NY Times reporters.)
Don't be so lazy. Go other places besides wikipedia.
You can start there, but especially on controversial issues it is not The Place to hang your hat.
Have you read the Cordoba website?
Well heck, if it is on their website it must be true. Only white people and Christians ever use public relations techniques. :)
Jal wrote;
But the congregation of the modest little St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was crushed in the collapse of the Islamic terrorist attacked WTC, have no place of their own because of all those regulations affecting the area ...
Again, it's not the legal that's the issue, it's the hypocrisy and evil.
What a great point. What say you libs. Shouldn't we rebuild the church that was already there but was destroyed in the attack before we build a new mosque? Is the reason you don't want to build said church because you hate Greeks or Christian Churches? I'd love to hear the regulations that would prevent a church from being rebuilt but would allow for a mosque to be built.
If you put it to a vote libs, what do you think most americans or new yorkers would prefer?
"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
He hasn't mastered not using the 'but' to undo the first clause.
The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. [ha ha!! only guilty ones] But it was Christians in World War II who ...
yada yada yada
The zinger:
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.
SO. It's not about "religion" dense ones.
It is about ESTABLISHING AN ISLAMIC STATE.
His.Own.Words.
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".
See? It is OUR FAULT. Funny ... why don't those angry young Muslim rebels off the Middle East {MUSLIM} dictators themselves?
Why doesn't the imam preach to and teach the angry young Msulim rebels the better way of the Q'uran?
Why is it OUR fault they are unhappy and unable to make a life with meaning apart from killing people? He's the imam. They are not about to listen to infidels anyway.
And of course, POTUS or his buddies took note of this speech and he did the All American Apology Tour and ? They still burn him in effigy.
I can feel the love from here.
Revenant wrote:
Well heck, if it is on their website it must be true. Only white people and Christians ever use public relations techniques. :)
Our lib buddies should bone up on the concept of taqiyya.
Jeremy wrote:
Are YOU a birther, too?
How about the rest of the local gang?
How many HERE are birthers??
I'm not a birther, but I think Obama did an awful lot of dissembling for a non issue. He should have just shown his birth certifcate as soon as it became an issue. And has he ever officially shown his bcertificate? I don't know for sure.
But anyway, we all think that's CRAZY. how about this one? 9/11 was an inside job. Bush was in on it. Fire can't melt steel. How many people, most of them on the left constructed scenarios whereby a simple attack on 9/11 turned into a plot that involved using demolitions on buildings and causing airplanes to disappear. I even remember seeing a movie about it,not to mention plenty of books. Are you a truther Jeremy? Which of the two stories sound more implausible? That someone would lie about their birth location so as to get a job, versus a vast conspiracy involving multiple operations and planes and explosives which HAD to involve govt at the most deepest levels. Or the idea that we went into Afghanistan simply because of the UNOCOL pipeline (the pipeline that has yet to be built). How many people spread that around?
Were you as adamant about outing Truthers as you were about outing Birthers? There does appear to be one birther on althouse, and he seems to think that both Mccain & Obama weren't born in the US, and therefore neither should be president. And usually every time he speaks people tell him to get over himself and shut up. But if you think thinking that is crazy, the obviously believing the 9/11 conspiracies has to be bat shit crazy to a factor of ten! Yet how may libs spread those stories around as if they were absolute truth?
How many HERE are birthers??
One.
Two, if you count Lonewacko.
Revenant: Did I get it right? Can I be a Democrat now?
I doubt you got it right since as far as I can you never get anything right. But the truth is, I'm not the one to ask, since I've never voted for any democrat in any election my entire life.
JAL
> He hasn't mastered not using the 'but' to undo the first clause.
To be fair, that was in I think something like September, 2001. They didn’t know to do that yet. ;-)
But yeah, saying the united states didn’t deserve 9-11, BUT… is like saying, “She didn’t deserve being raped, BUT she was dressed like a slut.”
> See? It is OUR FAULT. Funny ... why don't those angry young Muslim rebels off the Middle East {MUSLIM} dictators themselves?
Exactly. If oppression creates terrorism, then why aren’t the dictators constantly being shot at? I mean you might say that the United States backs dictators, but if this is about a genuine grievance, you go after that person directly screwing you, not the guy half a world away who maybe enables him a little.
I mean take this example, semi-based on “A Time to Kill.” Three guys brutally rape a little girl. A fourth guy sits in the car while it happens. Now you are the girl’s father, and justice has been denied and you decide to go vigilante. So who are you going to try to kill first? The guys who raped your little girl, or the wheelman? If its REALLY about the rape, then you would expect the guy to target the guys who did the rape, first, and maybe get around the wheelman if he has the opportunity.
Its stupid.
(to be continued)
JAL continued
What it comes down to is “why they hate us” has always served two purposes for the left. First, it gives liberals a chance to air all the grievances THEY have about America, and pretend they are not being dicks. Second, they can then ascribe motives to our opponents that then allows them to plausibly claim that enacting their liberal agenda will fight terrorism. The most blatant example of the latter is that idiot who claimed that bin Laden was popular because he built day care centers. You know, because bin Laden was all about giving working moms the ability to juggle family life and work. /sarcasm Seriously, this kind of thing is wholly disconnected from any facts.
And of course when you point all this out to a liberal they inevitably say “but its important to understand the enemy, to use that against them.” Except if we were really interested in doing that, this is how it would go. We would notice that the terrorists recruit their idiot suicide attackers by promising paradise—72 virgins and all that stupidity (sorry, if you believe God is a pimp, you are stupid). That is their “divine incentive.” So you would say that gee, maybe then we should take away that incentive. Now, they believe that if they are buried with a pig, that even if they die as martyrs they will still got to hell. So then you have a very easy way to take away that incentive: every time you get your hands on the remains of a suicide bomber, you bury their remains with pigs, and make sure the whole world knows you are doing this. Then see how many recruits you get. They use their religion against us, we should return the favor.
But of course the average whiny liberal is not interested in that kind of application, even though it is a directly logical way to understand their mentality and use it against them. Until and unless liberals want to bury islamofascist terrorists with pigs, it is pretty clear that the “why they hate us” mantra is NOT about helping us fight them more effectively.
In his cooper’s union speech, Lincoln asked if there was any way to appease the south. He then went on to say, sure, if we allowed slavery in the territories, and then in the northern states, if we suppressed anti-slavery speech and even unsaid what George Washington said, and undid what George Washington did, then war could be averted. Point being the cost of appeasement is too high to even consider.
So what would it really take to appease Osama bin Laden? Well, first we need to enact anti-blasphemy laws, which will probably require a constitutional amendment to repeal the first amendment in its freedom of expression and freedom of religion clauses (how can you choose your religion freely, if you cannot discuss freely the merits of each option?); and while we are at it enact public decency laws that make pretty much everything you see on MTV illegal (both their shows and, if they ever show an actual music video, the videos too).. Then we must repeal the 19th amendment and generally send women back into the kitchen and under face-covering veils. Then we must kill every gay person we can get our hands on. Next we must murder, or at least allow for the murder, of every man, woman and child living in Israel. Oh, and finally we must forcibly convert every American to Islam.
So, liberals are you interested in doing what it REALLY takes to appease them?
And if not, can you finally muster the will to really fight against this?
Let them build it.
And then let someone put up a billboard with Mohammed's visage up across the street.
The American Right is intent on making enemies of every possible Muslim. Here we have a group of moderate Muslims, enemies of al Qaeda, trying to exercise their freedom of religion and Althouse and the other wingnuts think it's wrong.
Why? Because the twin towers site should be a "muslim free zone?"
Perhaps there's some ghetto you would like to put them in?
From the Islamic quatrain of the sitting duck:
"O' ye that believe, take not Jews and Christians as your friends and protectors" - Qur'an, Surah 5:54
Alpha
As usual the liberal arguments are immune to, you know, facts.
> Here we have a group of moderate Muslims, enemies of al Qaeda
You do know that AQ is funding them, right?
Has it ever occured to you that maybe he is lying, especially with that name cordoba?
There's an easy answer: A plaque in front of the mosque, clearly visible from the sidewalk, that reads something like
"We remember the victims of the 9/11 tragedy that occurred nearby and elsewhere, and as faithful Muslims we renounce such atrocities against innocents of whatever faith. Let no one who passes here say that Islam stands for such shedding of innocent blood. Let no one who passes here ever PRAISE any who call for such an act of mass murder as occurred on 9/11. As all good Muslims should, as all good PEOPLE should, we will remember."
Overcome the Cordoba reference -- Make it an obvious bridge.
Here we have a group of moderate Muslims
In the sense that the Moral Majority was a group of moderate Christians.
The building of this Interfaith Center in Manhattan gives me a feeling of pure unalloyed joy - not because I'm a Muslim, & not even because of the symbolic victory it represents over the psychopathic hijinx of Al-Quaeda of nine years past ... but because it really works wonders at bringing the fools out of the woodwork, in all their strident glory.
The nature of the epic butthurt over a building that won't even be visible from "Ground Zero" (& I wonder what the residents of Hiroshima think of that casual appropriation, anyway?) is certainly educational.
Tolerance? Rule of law? Common decency? That stuff is for defeatists & pussies (you know: effete East Coast elitists - like Madison, Jefferson & Franklin)! REAL men "go with their gut" & not their head, amirite?
This negative reaction to Islam was exactly what Bin Laden counted on to win a major psychological victory in the wake of 9/11. I'm sure AQ is jubilant every time they see another FOX-fed wingnut cheerleading for an attack on Iran ... or condemning this project, which they must profoundly loathe.
The people who did 9/11 were as much Muslims as the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians.
Well I want to see the Charles Martel cultural center go up directly across from this cultural center for submission ( the translation of the word Islam ).
Post a Comment