I have now read beyond the first sentence of the column, and in case you found yourself unable to proceed, I'm here to tell you that Thomas Friedman wants us to know that he and his wife got to attend "A Broadway Celebration: In Performance at the White House," and he would like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
Feeling the pulsating energy of this performance was such a vivid reminder of America’s most important competitive advantage: the sheer creative energy that comes when you mix all our diverse people and cultures together.Some people get to experience "A Broadway Celebration: In Performance at the White House," and some people get to experience a mosque built near 9/11. Get it? If that doesn't cohere for you, remember the all-purpose glue: Diversity. When you're trying to fit things together that are completely unrelated, but, hell, you went to a White House concert and you're still pretty jazzed up by it, remember you can stick most anything together with goopy diversity.
Please be creative and express yourself with diverse pulsating energy in the comments.
ADDED: 1. The poll seems to be malfunctioning. [AND: Looks okay now.] 2. "built near 9/11" isn't really the right way to say built near the WTC site, but something made me say it that way, and I will leave it as is.
Posts
185 comments:
he would like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
He should just buy us all a Coke.
Nuts.
I have no problem with a mosque being built. I would not even care if some mosque was built near the World Trade Center site, if it really were a congregation that it was serving. The Cordoba Islamic Center is much more than that. And I believe its supporters are up to no good. It is just another version of Soros' International Freedom Center.
That said, if they comply with the law, first amendment and property rights dictate they can do this. That does not mean I have to like it. Nor does it make me a racist or anti-Islamic for saying so.
Diversity only works if there is mutual respect. It takes all parties for creativity to work, but only a small group to dissent in order to ruin it. People have an impression that Islam doesn't foster respect for contrary points of view.
From today's NY Post: Picture muslim calls to prayer wafting over the names of the 9/11 dead.
Huh?
Hey Friedman, why not invite all us backward thinking conservatives over to your digs for some cocktails and we can discuss it. Host bar of course.
As for snackies, grilled cheese sandwiches and popcorn work, provided you have top shelf booze.
Thanks.
Pulsating diversity.
Seriously, what is it in the nature of liberals - perhaps it's in a form in all of us - that makes them feel all gooey inside at the thought of everyone in the world holding hands and singing together in "peace" (excepting of course, the greedy who have more than everyone else)?
What part of there are people in this world who just won't be happy unless you and your family are dead or enslaved or are their sex/rape toys do they not get?
Hey Thomas Freidman - pulsate this: not all cultures are equal. some are plain bad, and frankly, some are plain evil.
From the Article:
You can study Islam at virtually any American university, but you can’t even build a one-room church in Saudi Arabia.
Part -- one small part -- of why America is great and Saudi Arabia is not.
This past Sunday evening my wife and I had the opportunity to go to the Huntington Gardens and Library where we listened to the Inka Kings play. We had croissants with turkey or roast beef, along with a bottle of Cabernet.
This is why I oppose the mosque being built.
8 paragraphs in before he mentions the mosque.
I can understand (what I think is) his key point: diversity enriches America. I agree with that. BUT
-In this case it ignores the pain of many
-I haven't seen such celebration of diversity for those white racists shouting at the Tea Party rallies.
Obviously the International Freedom Center was not Islamic. It was a secular museum intended to use 9/11 as a teaching moment. Thanks but no thanks. While Soros funded the seed money, it was also proposed to involve government money.
The Cordoba Islamic Center is privately funded. Nevertheless, it is intended to use 9/11 as a teaching moment. I am pretty sure that any critical reflection of how Islamic fundamentalism brainwashed Mohammed Atta and his fellow terrorists to murder and mayhem will not be focused on.
That article reads like a parody.
Muslims can rock on! Who knew?
I think Friedman's prescription for Ritalin had run out when he wrote that column.
There's a reason why I never finished reading Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat: the guy is long-winded and badly in need of an editor.
There's no legitimate way to stop it -- though I should like to note that the New York City tax base would probably be expanded by expropriating this property and handing it over to a developer opening a bacon superstore, and if that's good enough reasoning for New London, Connecticut and SCOTUS... -- but I expect it to go down about as well with the general populace as a Japan-US friendship center at Pearl Harbor.
Jerks.
The mythology that love will beat bands of invading warriors is a beautiful faith. But it hasn't slowed down Muslim expansion. Only military action defeating them has done that job since 732 AD. The money from oil fields has tipped the balance of power in favor of oil wealthy nations. But we are now ruled by King Obama I, who loves his sweet fellow Muslims so much that he plans to Stop our oil industry dead in the water in deference to orders from Mecca's Saudi Kingdom. The Saudis rule over Islam the way that Popes of old ruled over Catholic countries until the 1600s.
I'd like to teach him a thing or two about diversity by putting my foot up his ass.
I'd like to teach him a thing or two about diversity by putting my foot up his ass.
If the shoe fit I'm sure he'd wear it it.
The visitor's center at Caen where the Normandy Beaches tours stop for several hours is chock full of Propaganda condemning the Americans for unnecessary brutality and for luring the innocent Germans into a destructive war so that America could fight and win on European soil. I bet any 9/11 display by the Muslims will be very similar.
I didn't vote, btw. I was intrigued, but not amused.
As far as I am concern Big jew Friedman can take his towelhead friends and go back to the desert from which they came!
Raise your hand if you don't think the FBI will have agents undercover inside this thing. That doesn't bring me a lot of comfort for two reasons. 1) the Bush-era purges and 2) the Brits did it too, probably more ruthlessly than we would, and just look what they are dealing with.
I bet any 9/11 display by the Muslims will be very similar.
Not sure about that TG but it does sound like what AQ would propagate regarding Iraq.
Diversity means nothing unless you have individual liberty to pursue your happiness. Take a look at the Soviet Union and all their pulsating diversity!!
Oh, Mr. Friedman, you are such an unbearable, insufferable dope.
Guys like Friedman, Frank Rich, Michael Bloomberg, Jonathan Chait, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama himself just don't like "the people" very much. They view voters with suspicion and distrust and sometimes with disgust, and they view themselves as the entitled aristocrats of morality, sensibility, and privilege, for whom special allowances--whether on non-payment of taxes, use of government aircraft, or the size of their carbon footprint--must always be made.
Frank Rich is the most ludicrous of the bunch, a jumped-up reviewer of tv programs who tells readers as often as he can that he went to Harvard. So even some assholes go to Harvard.
It is time to dump them all, and it will begin to happen in earnest this November.
Diversity? What are the possibilities of this Mosque having a gay outreach program?
Hey Tidy Moby,
Still haven't got your schtick quite down yet I see. Been a little too busy cleaning up mom's basement lately?
Liberals will only be satisfied when America has tolerated itself into non-existence.
Just kidding. Liberals will never be satisfied.
Insufferable, indeed. Only about 1/3 of the column has any relevance. Bloomberg's speech, yesterday, was much better.
The mosque, without doubt, is being built on the site of the WTC in order to proclaim an Islamist victory--that a mosque has been built where the landing gear of one of the WTC flights landed. And without doubt it will be understood as such in most of the Muslim world.
How about building a memorial to Charles Martel and Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand across the street from the Cordoba House Center?
Just for historical balance.
Countries that choke themselves off from exposure to different cultures, faiths and ideas will never invent the next Google or a cancer cure, let alone export a musical or body of literature that would bring enjoyment to children everywhere.
Imagine a day without Western Civilization.
This is like building a strip club next to a women's health center that deals with rape victims. Legal, but in criminally bad taste.
"goopy diversity"
The thick shit that is grinding western civilization to a halt.
It's difficult to embrace diversity when the other fellow want to cut you to bits, including a good beheading if he thinks you deserve it.
But this debate has exposed the mental kinship between Islam and Progressive American elites: "I am superior to you and this is for your own good, like it or not."
...let alone export a musical or body of literature that would bring enjoyment to children everywhere.
You mean like the 250 school children who were raped, stabbed, beaten, and murdered by Muslims in Beslan?
Islam's most revered general, Osama bin Laden, has ordered the same fate for PS-1 in New York, and he won't be deterred by a Coke commercial.
I'll trade you a mosque at the World Trade Center for a cathedral in Mecca.
I thought we had separation of church and state? If Saudi Government (Royal Family) money is involved (as it so often is), isn't that a "state" that needs separation?
How about the espionage/sabatoge statutes? If this is a non-military attack on the US by a foreign power -- The Caliphate, then is legal action warrented?
How about the Foreign Agent Registration Act? We got rid of the commie spies that way. Is the Imam foreign agent? Is he registered?
How about condemning the building and doing a land swap with St. Nicholas Orthodox Church (destroyed on 9-11 and still not rebuilt.
A "religion" that slaughters children is not a religion. Here are photos from a typical Muslim outreach program: http://dodocanspell.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-happened-in-beslan-russia.html
Rich B: Good idea, but I would suggest a strip club named The Crusader. It could be a copy of the strip club the 9/11 hijackers visited in the night before their triumph. Maybe there could be a big screen tv on the outside of the building broadcasting a biopic-like version of their very last night strip clubbing. Very outreach.
Tidy Righty: Vanish. Please.
“We have condemned the actions of 9/11,” [Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Muslim leader behind the project] said.
Well isn't that nice. Which actions exactly? When did you condemn them? How strongly did you condemn them? To whom did you condemn them?
And I'm sure you didn't make any conflicting statements to anyone else at any time in, say, Arabic. Did you?
Part -- one small part -- of why America is great and Saudi Arabia is not.
Well to paraphrase our President, I suspect that while you may think the US is great, the Saudis also believe in thier greatness too.
but, hell, you went to a White House concert and you're still pretty jazzed up by it
LOL. And rarin' to brag about it!
I never dreamed I'd be saying this, but I found him less intolerable when he was fellating Hu Jintao.
There is an exception to the first amendment when the government has a compelling interest.
The compelling interest is not waiving what the enemy will see as a white flag of surrender.
but of course the idiots in charge of NYC are too PC to notice that.
So a mosque who's name celebrates islamic victory over infidels, funded by al Qaeda, by a imam who can't call hamas terrorists, but can blame us for our own attacks on 9-11, can be built i guess.
And of course if you disagree with that, you hate all muslims, obviously. *rolls eyes*
But hey, i can't wait for more liberals trying to prove their tolerance is bigger than mine while ignoring all those inconvenient facts.
Yeah, i am intolerant, of intolerance. Silly that.
"built near 9/11"
That formulation has been used on TV a lot during the current discussions so there must be something "natural" about it.
You could say "near the World Trade Center" (noun phrase not adjective without the word "Site") since One World Trade Center is now above ground level and will head up quickly since they finished the over-height lobby level.
I find it interesting in any political discussion touching on diversity that:
-liberals tend to ignore the long history of diversity in America (multiple waves of immigrants generally well integrated into American society) and focus on the "problem areas" (slavery and post-slavery segregation; interment of Japanese-Americans)
-conservatives tend to ignore same history but from the opposite perspective (i.e. yes, we've done a decent job of eliminating black/white racism in public policy and culture but lets not ignore the long history prior)
As far as the mosque/Islam controversy, I'll leave behind this specific case and point out the greater issue that seems to get missed. It's far more important for Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to reach out and influence his fellow muslims throughout the world than to enlighten Americans. If I understand what he has done in that vein, I appreciate that he is doing more than just making public statements that Islam is a religion of peace and nothing more.
he would like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
In Jr High we always sang it I'd like the build the world and home and furnish shit with love.
It's our creativity that will save us.
I can see it now, in my mind's eye, Horatio:
[queue the music]
But, let a Muslim on your block, and your Constitution’s through,
in a line that never ends comes an army of their friends,
come to jabber and to chatter
and to preach on what the matter is with YOU!,
They'll have a bearded, head-scarfed family,
who will descend on you en mass,
they'll have a large and towering steeple,
with a call that shatters glass,
Let a Muslim on your block,
Let a Muslim on your block,
Let a Muslim on your block - I shall never let a Muslim on my block.
A Mosque at ground zero??? That's like building a Japanese-American friendship center at Hiroshima!!!!!!!!
Is that what Friedman was talking about? That kind of thing?
Again I think it bears repeating, I think its wonderful that liberals have finally found a group of religious fundamentalists that they can embrace.
A Mosque at ground zero??? That's like building a Japanese-American friendship center at Hiroshima!!!!!!!!
Not at all. Your analogy would be apt if we were talking about a Muslim-American friendship center. Since we're not, and mosques are widely used throughout the world for radicalizing their followers, your analogy fails.
Japanese-American friendship centers also don't broadcast call-to-friendships over loudspeakers five times a day. The equivalent in your analogy would be if said Japanese-American friendship center broadcast a B-29's engines loudly five times a day followed by an earth-shattering kaboom.
How do you suppose that would fly, even 50 years after the fact?
Michael-
I like the way you think.
I am sure Mayor Bloomberg would be fine with that.
A Mosque at ground zero??? That's like building a Japanese-American friendship center at Hiroshima!!!!!!!!
It is an interesting parallel when you consider the ferocity that was the PTO; the fanatical, religious devotion to the god-Emperor, the suicide bombers (kamikazees), samuri sword beheadings, mass suicides vs surrenders.
Then a couple of big bangs later and the Japanese become overnight pacifists and solid allies.
Coincidence....or not.
Then a couple of big bangs later and the Japanese become overnight pacifists and solid allies.
Hoosier everyone KNOWS that the REAL target of the Atomic Bombs was the Soviet Union. The Japanese were merely the Little Yellow Excuses for Truman to demonstrate Capitalist Hegemony over the Progressive Forces of International Proleterianism!
Scott-- your argument doesn't fly with me. Since the whole purpose of the Cordoba mosque is to promote improved west-muslim relations, I think the analogy is apt.
You are the kind of ignorant, hateful bigot we here in NYC bemusedly imagine is causing this ridiculous stir. Why don't you do us a favor and #1 stay out of our city and #2 mind your own business. If you think the sound of a loudspeaker can even carry that distance in this city, it just proves your total incomprehension of WHAT NYC IS and WHO LIVES HERE. (Besides the fact that your fantasy of Cordoba blasting a call to prayer is just a lurid, victimization-porn fever dream. Why don't you go pet your handgun or whatever it is you do for fun.)
Here is a teaching moment...
El Cid Rocked.
I think that what is a bit weird about Freidman is that he has made some great points along the way, and I have gotten a lot from some of his books. Yet, the more I read from him, the more whacked out he seems. Living in some liberal cocoon with little connection with reality.
Scott-- your argument doesn't fly with me. Since the whole purpose of the Cordoba mosque is to promote improved west-muslim relations, I think the analogy is apt.
Gullible much? You sound like you just fell off the turnip truck, boy.
Thank you, MM, for providing yet again what wonderful people the left tends to produce. I want to debate the issue and start a point-counterpoint. Instead of simply debating, which I would be happy to do, you go off the deep end and start throwing a hissyfit personal attack. You then compound the personal attack with even more broad brush strokes. Epic fail.
The more moderately-spoken comments yesterday by Gabriel and others actually had me rethink the whole issue. While not completely convinced, I'm open to further dialog about it. You and those of your ilk, on the other hand, respond to debate with attack, attack, attack. How do you suppose that helps convince anyone?
Friedman's column makes you wonder whether he has ever set foot in Manhattan, let alone the outer boroughs. Then you remember the bird's eye view of his Gore-rivaling compound somewhere in leafy Maryland, and realize that he probably hasn't in a while.
News flash: NYC is already the most ethnically and culturally diverse place on Planet Earth. That's got exactly nothing to do with the Cordoba House mosque. Nor does the First Amendment have much to contribute here, agt least as it has been wielded by Friedman (and Mayor Bloomy). No one is disputing the legal right of the imam-developer to build the damnable thing.
The entire dispute is over the ridiculous contention that the mosque is being built near the WTC site to promote cross-cultural understanding, blah-blah-blah. Complete BS. It's being built there intentionally as a triumphalist provocation, and it has succeeded (perhaps more wildly that the imam had hoped) in being provocative.
The usual suspects are insisting that we all just pretend that the truth is not what everyone who cares to look can plainly see, just as they did with the Times Square would-be bomber, Major Nidal and on and on.
Friedman's inane column today reduces the entire meme to the level of laughable absurdity. He didn't intend to do that, but in a perverse way, his self-involved moralizing captures the whole thing in truly brilliant way. For Friedman (and Mayor Bloomy), the real point of Islamic jihadism is the opportunity it offers for them to preen in the glorious light of their liberal but otherworldly pieties.
In their world, it really is always about them.
Imagine if he'd seen the garden!
Perfect produce, in amazing diversity. No pests, predators, weeds, thorns, rot or blight.
You are the kind of ignorant, hateful bigot....
This is especially funny coming from a liberal whose compatriots never gave a second thought to referring to evangelicals as 'Jesus Freaks' or think that 'art' like Piss Christ is simply an a celebration of artistic expression.
Hoosier everyone KNOWS that the REAL target of the Atomic Bombs was the Soviet Union. The Japanese were merely the Little Yellow Excuses for Truman to demonstrate Capitalist Hegemony over the Progressive Forces of International Proleterianism!
The formerly exception USA was able to accomplish many things at the same time. We even walked and chewed gum.
Now, we can't even afford the gum without whipping out the Mastercard.
D'oh. "exception" should read "exceptional". Snark always fails if you have to retype it...lol
You know? To HELL with New York City. I always hated the place. You fuckers can do what you want with it.
The right thing to do is buy the mosque and build a financial center over it.
It's being built there intentionally as a triumphalist provocation, and it has succeeded (perhaps more wildly that the imam had hoped) in being provocative.
Yup, it's so the Muzzies can say UP YOURS AMERICA WE OWN YOU.
Please be creative and express yourself with diverse pulsating energy in the comments.
Since your previous post related to the mosque being built near the WTC ruins went over 360 comments, the diversity and pulsating, as well as the quantity, are a given.
Whether there will be any creativity seems unlikely. Some of us think that the mosque is somewhere between insensitive and offensive, while others think that unless we all visualize rainbows and unicorns then the Dark Ages will descend upon us all once again. And a few trolls used the last post to try to beat up on conservatives, and presumably will again. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of a middle ground, or in the way of creativity, to be found.
@Monty, some of us lost friends of friends at the Pentagon and regard a mosque being built near the ruins of the WTC as a thumb in our eyes. Leave it to a New Yawka to think that everything revolves around their experiences and their experiences alone.
It does not demonstrate diversity nor friendship. It demonstrates cruelty to the American people and to New Yorkers, only made possible by our tolerance.
If they want to encourage diversity, they need to build it some place where tolerance is not the norm, like Saudi Arabia, or Gaza. It might actually be able to affect it's stated purpose there. But, everyone including Friedman knows why it's being built. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise. Friedman is simply lying because he needs, like many, to be for whatever the rubes are against, no matter what it is. That's the starting point, then you contrive a reason to justify it after the fact.
"Why don't you do us a favor and #1 stay out of our city and #2 mind your own business."
#1 It's not your city nor your issue alone.
#2) Staying out of other's business is why it should not be built. It getting all up in other's business, and on purpose.
#3) Liberals have no business telling others to stay out of their business. Liberalism's most overpowering feature is getting in everyone's business.
New York, New York!
It's a wonderful town!
The Bronx is up and
The Mosque is where
The Towers went down!
I can't engage with anyone on the other side of this "debate"-- especially anyone who brandishes their grief for lost loved ones on 9/11. I just feel sorry for those people-- they are buying into a hateful and pernicious lie being spread by folks who are using easy shortcuts for political and monetary gain.
Opposing the construction of this mosque is LITERALLY un-American. If you really believe in the constitution, the framers' vision, and all that FREEDOM stuff, I don't see how you could possibly support barring the construction of a building on the basis of religious affiliation.
It's sickening.
AllenS,
Oh, it'll have an outreach pogram all right.
I might add that the military's response to the attack at the Pentagon makes Bloomberg and rest of the New Yorkers look like the wimpy twits they are. One year later the damage had been fully repaired, the offices reopened, and the entire building made more blast resistant.
Per the Freedom Tower web site, as of today the New Yawkas don't even have steel in place for a third of the planned number of floors, much less any near term occupation.
Left to the military, you'd have two towers right on the footprint of the original buildings, same height and outward appearance, but stronger and able to resist collapsing even if a Boeing 787 hits it. With stronger and better evacuation capabilities, too.
MM
In any sense that I do oppose this being built, it's not on religious grounds.
I notice, though, that you completely ignore the majority of my response, which pointed out how "sickening" your attack on me was. Do you still stand by it or do you apologize for it?
You also ignored my point that personal attacks like that do nothing to help your cause, especially when hurled at someone who's actually considering the side you say you stand for.
Big Mike: You don't seem to realize that the Port Authority (controlled 50-50 by NY and NJ) owns the WTC site. New Yawkas, as you call us, don't have a free hand here. The politics is much crazier than you probably imagine.
In all events, this is not a story that benefits from some weird, 'we all hate NYC for good reason' silliness.
I might add that the military's response to the attack at the Pentagon makes Bloomberg and rest of the New Yorkers look like the wimpy twits they are. One year later the damage had been fully repaired, the offices reopened, and the entire building made more blast resistant.
Per the Freedom Tower web site, as of today the New Yawkas don't even have steel in place for a third of the planned number of floors, much less any near term occupation.
Left to the military, you'd have two towers right on the footprint of the original buildings, same height and outward appearance, but stronger and able to resist collapsing even if a Boeing 787 hits it. With stronger and better evacuation capabilities, too
That's because the military actually practices a top-down command structure that actually gives a damn about each and every person they are responsible for. Unlike those that want a top-down structure on the civilian side, but only say they care continue to get re-elected.
MonMon,
Way to undermine your point. Now I'm not sure how old you are, so I can't necessarily blame your educators for your lack of this basic knowledge, but in WWII Japan was defeated.
And as far as improving relations between Muslims and the West, not only would they not name it "Cordoba" if they had any clues, but the very formulation "improving west-muslim relations" is quite troubling in its implications that Muslims are by nature non-Western.
The ironic thing about Friedman's paragraph and reality is that the Observation Deck on the WTC contained a TICKETS booth.
Obtaining discount tickets to Broadway plays was much easier there than at the one in Times Square because of shorter lines.
This has nothing to do with religion, that's the cover. If 9/11 was perpetrated by the KKK and they wanted to build a KKK clubhouse there, would you fools still be screaming about diversity and tolerance? It's a political act intended to desecrate, harm and hate.
It may be legal, but supporting it is immoral.
I'm waiting for the Sons of Confederate Veterans to open their national headquarters next door to Ford's Theater. Because of the diversity.
Alex wrote: You know? To HELL with New York City. I always hated the place. You fuckers can do what you want with it.
Spoken like Oliver Wendall Douglas
Montagne
> A Mosque at ground zero??? That's like building a Japanese-American friendship center at Hiroshima!!!!!!!!
Imagine if they called it the Kamikaze Temple for the Worship of the God-Emporer Hirhito and you would be closer to the mark.
By the way, its interesting you bring up WWII. At the end of WWII we demanded that the Emperor renounce his divinity. So our federal government literally destroyed an entire religion, practiced by at least some Americans at the time. What an interesting precedent.
> Scott-- your argument doesn't fly with me. Since the whole purpose of the Cordoba mosque is to promote improved west-muslim relations, I think the analogy is apt.
So why did Al Qaeda fund it?
And why is it named in honor of a Islamic victory over Christians. I mean isn’t it like putting a King Richard the Lionhearted Cathedral in downtown Baghdad?
> You are the kind of ignorant, hateful
Except you have proven that your opinions are based on ignorance. Indeed willful ignorance, ignoring us every time we bring up pesky facts.
> Opposing the construction of this mosque is LITERALLY un-American.
Hey maybe you should ask for a committee to be created to investigate this kind of un-American activity.
Joe
> Hoosier everyone KNOWS
You know, I think that was a joke, but... its really hard to tell these days.
Mike
> One year later the damage had been fully repaired, the offices reopened, and the entire building made more blast resistant.
You know you are doing badly when the federal government is more efficient than you.
AllenS: Diversity? What are the possibilities of this Mosque having a gay outreach program?
Kirk Parker: Oh, it'll have an outreach pogram all right.
Montainge Montagne wrote:
"I can't engage with anyone on the other side of this "debate"-- especially anyone who brandishes their grief for lost loved ones on 9/11. I just feel sorry for those people-- they are buying into a hateful and pernicious lie being spread by folks who are using easy shortcuts for political and monetary gain.
Opposing the construction of this mosque is LITERALLY un-American. If you really believe in the constitution, the framers' vision, and all that FREEDOM stuff, I don't see how you could possibly support barring the construction of a building on the basis of religious affiliation.
I"m going to ask this plainly because I want to get an answer from you, other than anyone who opposes is a bigot. One, a church went down. Why is that not rebulit? Would you have a problem with rebuiling that first? Why or why not?
Two, have you bothered checking into the imam who is proposing this and where his funding is coming from.
IF it were determined that he refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and IF he wanted to implement some form of shariah law in America, and IF he helped pay for the flotillah of supposed peace makers who just wanted to deliver supplies and intentionally broke the blockade setup by Israel and Egypt then attacked the soldiers who tried to board the flotilla, and IFit were determined that he said we were partially responsible for 9/11 would any of those things be potential disqualifiers for you? Why, or why not.
Also, do YOU think that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Do YOU think that they (whoever they are) should have broken the blockade set up by Israel then attack those attempting to board the ship? Do YOU think that we as Americans need to atone for our sins and are partially responsible for 9/11. (and if so please tell me which specific policies are causing their enmity). I'm asking this because it's pretty clear to me, that many liberals in fact have the default Hamas position, and would not call Hamas terrorists either. Then it makes perfect sense to not dig deeper into the financing of this particular mosque.
You say the lack of support signifies that those who oppose the building of the mosque are simply bigots. But what does it mean for those who support the mosque. Are you terrorist supporters who hate Israel and the US (hey, we can be as incendiary with our charges as you), or is there some other principle at work?
What are the possibilities of the homosexual community demanding that the Mosque accept lesbian, homosexual and transgendered individuals? I left out cross-dressers, because that's just wrong.
Only people who have never stood up to a bully will mindlessly support building a mosque there [i.e in a whispered voice "if we walk around him, he will leave us alone"]. When their head is about to be sliced off, they will understand how stupid they are.
If you want examples, just choose the usual liberal suspects.
Alan S: I intend to have cross dressers in abundance at my new strip club, Crusaders, which I intend to erect opposite the nifty new "community center" in lower Manhattan. The hijackers who downed the WTC were aficionados of strippers and lap dances and I think they should be on offer. Including cross dressers.
I'd like to see Jeremy enter the Mosque and explain his teabagging obsession.
MM;
Montagne Montaigne said...
A Mosque at ground zero??? That's like building a Japanese-American friendship center at Hiroshima!!!!!!!!
Did you explore your link. For this proposed center to be like the center it Hiroshima, it would have to:
-be reaching out and focusing on the victims of the 9-11 attacks.
-it would wholly renounce the use of violence by Muslims and any other group
As best as I understand this Mosque/Community Center is not like that.
Did you explore your link. For this proposed center to be like the center it Hiroshima, it would have to:
-be reaching out and focusing on the victims of the 9-11 attacks.
-it would wholly renounce the use of violence by Muslims and any other group
As best as I understand this Mosque/Community Center is not like that.
Which is why I called his analogy a failure. You can see lower in the thread that he still decides to defend it as apt.
MM;
From your link
So will this Mosque/Center be teaching Americans about "peace and anti-terrorist" issues? Seems Americans don't need a helluva lot of instruction in "anti-terrorist" issues. (Just like the Japanese are pretty sold on anti-nuclear warfare)
Now if this Center in Hiroshima was teaching Japanese why Americans felt a need to attack Japan and how that might not have been the best way to reconcile with Japan, I could see the analogy but...
(PS Are there really on 4 people in Japan interested in anti-nuclear and peace issues?)
I don't live in New York. DTL won't let me vote.
What I really don't get from those who think we are at war with the muslims is that we are currently at war with militants in two countries and our whole strategy depends on raising HUGE MUSLIM ARMIES to fight them.
"The U.S. military should not train muslim soldiers so close to the ground where U.S. soldiers died at muslim hands. Instead we should train the muslims in a third, non-muslim country."
Or, from what I gather from folks around here, "NUKE 'em and that'll learn 'em." First law of counterinsurgency.
If there is single argument against building a mosque that doesn't spring from anti-muslim sentiment, I have yet to hear it. Al Qaeda is not able to speak in the name of Islam as a whole. The hijackers killed in the name of Islam, but that doesn't make all muslims responsible.
You have to believe that we are at war with Islam to believe that. And that, my friends, is an argument from bigotry and ignorance.
While I agree that diversity can provide creative energy to our culture, it is naive to think building this mosque will somehow send even more of a message of our religious tolerance to Muslims. We have that now and it has not deterred our home grown radicals, nor has it convinced a county that bans use of blackberries, or jails Sufis to become more tolerant. Sadly I think it will be seen, by most muslims in other countries as a symbol of their expansion into the west.
traditionalguy said...
The mythology that love will beat bands of invading warriors is a beautiful faith. But it hasn't slowed down Muslim expansion. Only military action defeating them has done that job since 732 AD.
Beyond Charles the Hammer Martel, some credit should go to Poland's Jan III, along with 20,000 Lancers who led history's largest Cavalry charge to end the Siege of Vienna. Folks don't recognize that in 1683 long after those "Crusaders", the Muslims were still pressing Europe.
And so I've said it, I agree with Fred's initial statement (9:27)
AND
I'd have the same viscerally negative response if some group chose to build a museum dedicated to the history of "Muslim atrocities" on a similar site.
Monty
Well, you are now officially confessing you have NO ARGUMENTS in favor of this mosque. How do I know this… well, let’s look here.
> What I really don't get from those who think we are at war with the muslims
Obviously you believe that if you say a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Who specifically here says we are at war with all Muslims?
> If there is single argument against building a mosque that doesn't spring from anti-muslim sentiment, I have yet to hear it.
Proving you haven’t been listening when we pointed out that this mosque is al Qaeda funded.
So that is how I know you have NO ARGUMENTS in favor of the mosque. Because if you did, you would actually address our points. Instead you just pretend we all said, “all Muslims are evil! Nuk’em! Nuk’em! Nuk’em! We didn’t say that and you know it, but you have decided to kill this straw man, because you know you can’t win the substantive argument.
As a jew, I'm tickled at all the great appreciations to the Christian Kingdom's beating back of the Muslim invaders.
On behalf of the victims of the inquisition that followed, I say "thanks but no thanks".
Hey AW, I dont need any arguments "in favor" of the mosque other that, THIS IS AMERICA and WE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT and PRIVATE PROPERTY and WTF ARE YOU SMOKING?
What Lucid said :)
@ 10:04 AM
You have to believe that we are at war with Islam to believe that. And that, my friends, is an argument from bigotry and ignorance.
You'll have to forgive us for thinking those things when we're treated to almost daily news of bombings, shootings, beheadings and threats of more. I hate to burst your bubble Monty but as I said yesterday, when you look at the globe, from Iraq to Somalia to Thailand to the Philipines, it certainly appears that a sizable portion of the followers of Islam are at war with someone. That's not bigotry, that's fact.
For a supposed small minority of fanatics, the supposed larger moderate, tolerant percentage seem to have monumentally failed to bring the former to heel. That's either through gross incompetence or simply lackluster desire. I'll leave it to you to be the judge.
Just as an aside, you might want to drop the whole bigotry schtick since liberals like yourself are hardly in a position to reprimand anyone on criticizing a religion.
Beyond Charles the Hammer Martel, some credit should go to Poland's Jan III, along with 20,000 Lancers who led history's largest Cavalry charge to end the Siege of Vienna.
Thank you but we Poles prefer the term husaria.
As you were. :-)
"As a jew, I'm tickled at all the great appreciations to the Christian Kingdom's beating back of the Muslim invaders.
On behalf of the victims of the inquisition that followed, I say "thanks but no thanks"."
On behalf of the Christian Kingdom, you're welcome. We'll keep beating them back as long as you let us.
But I got to say that that whole inquisition deal was seven or eight centuries ago and I'm pretty sure even the victims have forgotten about it.
This might be too late in the thread to get an answer but does anybody know if anyone can go into a mosque? Maybe it should become an unofficial tourist attraction and Christians and Jews should make a point of going in and observing.
Montagne Montaigne wrote:
What I really don't get from those who think we are at war with the muslims is that we are currently at war with militants in two countries and our whole strategy depends on raising HUGE MUSLIM ARMIES to fight them.
This would all be well and good if it wasn't you liberals who said that democracy could never be achieved in Iraq and that what was best was to implement a new strong man dictator in the place fo Sadaam as that's all they understand. Considering Iraq was not hardcore Islamic (though certianly would play with Islamists when it suited them) you'd think the experiment at democracy would werk best there. But no, to you liberals that was a lost cause because they simply will not get democracy. Suddenly though, when it suits you Muslims are again democracy loving and Islam is a peaceful religion.
We are at war with Islam, or a form of Islam, simply because the extremists are fighting for their god. Therefore, whether we want to be or not, it is a fight against a religion. But here's the thing. Islam is at war with Islam. There is either the tolerant Islam or the terrorist Islam and the question is which is it's true face. I would simply argue that based on it's teachings Islam is a religion of war, and not tolerance. Though, in countries like america where it is not predominant and where it is essentially neutered, it can be a religion that practices tolerance (because it has to). So, there can be a tolerant Islam, but is the Islam we see here representational? I would say no. Do I think we can get Islam to become more tolerant. Perhaps, but it would take the moderates to fight as hard for their religion as the extremists are fighting for theirs, and yet you rarely hear the moderates, but you can always get a crowd of extremists.
Perhaps it will take an all out war against extremist ISlam and multiple occupations to get this change, but fundamentally, extremist Islam has to be pounced on so hard that it's ideology is completely discredited. And that usually requires utter defeat. But note, that the radicals have no problem going as far as possible to achieve their victory. They'd chop off the heads of apostates as quickly as they could find them. So you wonder how moderate Islam would ever win over extremists.
On behalf of the victims of the inquisition that followed, I say "thanks but no thanks".
Would ya care ta compare numbers of victims of Torquenda v. Al Qaeda, both in gross and per capita terms, MM?
On behalf of the victims of the inquisition that followed, I say "thanks but no thanks".
But you're OK with the Jewish cultural experience today in Tehran, Cairo, and Mecca?
How's that workin out?
Seen many Dominicans around with hot irons lately?
How about AQ guys with swords?
which is more likely to be hunting Jews this century?
Monty, serious question:
Devout Muslims, as I have seen, much more so than evangelical Christians, seem to be quite opposed to the gay lifestyle; have a pretty mysogonistic view of women and don't exactly preach much in the way of tolerance toward other religions and have quite a...ahem...strong opinion about those of the Jewish persuasion.
I wonder how you, as a liberal, square those attitudes with what appears to be your very fervent support of this group.
Come on, MM. Respond to direct challenges. I would think you would feel obliged to, as the target of your direct derision has asked you to. You can't possibly be that vein and small to ignore a civil request that you answer for your own words.
Hoosier Daddy said...
Thank you but we Poles prefer the term husaria.
I was a Cavalryman myself. I understand the difference.
I used the more common term Lancer, because the Polish were genericly heavy Lancers.
The common usage of Hussar, describes a light scouting horseman (e.g Hungarian Hussars), not the tanks of their day, which is what the Polish Lancers were.
Montagne Montaigne wrote:
"If there is single argument against building a mosque that doesn't spring from anti-muslim sentiment, I have yet to hear it. Al Qaeda is not able to speak in the name of Islam as a whole. The hijackers killed in the name of Islam, but that doesn't make all muslims responsible."
I juist made the argument. Why not respond to it.
WHo is funding this mosque? Where is the money coming from. What does this imam believe. Does he think Hamas is or isn't a terrorist organization? etc etc etc. Since we both recognize that there is a tolerant muslim and an extremist muslim, where does this imam fall on the scale. You should be exrremely troubled by the fact that he won't renounce Hamas, because it implies to me that he might therefore buy some of that ideology and might like to get his feet wet in terrorist activities (if not outright terrorism, then funding it behind the scenes).
"You have to believe that we are at war with Islam to believe that. And that, my friends, is an argument from bigotry and ignorance."
We ARE at war with Islam, or rather Islam is at war with us. It's not the only face of Islam of course, but you have to recognize that when one side bases its will to fight on religious grounds, that we are therefore at war with a religion. If you want to call Moderate Islam Islam II to differentiate then we can supposedly rightly be at war with Islam I and not be bigots correct? Or is it bigoted and ignorant to assume that the extreme form of Islam hates us and is at war with us, (and we are at war with them).
Where does this Imam stand. Is he part of Islam I or Islam II? And if he were part of Islam I as many believe would THAT invalidate the building of this particular mosque?
I was a Cavalryman myself. I understand the difference.
Sorry if you read me wrong, I was saying it tongue and cheek since the Polish heavy cav at the time of Sobeieski were known as the 'winged hussars'. Not sure why the term was used since as you noted they were heavy cavalry rather than light horse.
Hoosier Daddy said...
Sorry if you read me wrong, I was saying it tongue and cheek
I wasn't offended in the least. I thought your image perfectly captured my comment with:
Vienna 1683, Poland saves Europe
Monty
> Hey AW, I dont need any arguments "in favor" of the mosque other that, THIS IS AMERICA and WE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT and PRIVATE PROPERTY and WTF ARE YOU SMOKING?
Right, there are never, ever any exceptions to the first amendment. *rolls eyes*
There are certain circumstances when the first amendment gives way to other issues. I have argued that this is one of them. and you have basically farted here for several posts in response. I can only conclude that you have no counter to any of my points.
@Hoosier, since we haven't had heavy and light cavalry for quite some time, your last quip probably went over everyone's head.
Geoff
> Diversity only works if there is mutual respect.
I would like to see them refuse to allow them to build this mosque, but your logic is absolutely wrong. I am under no obligation to show any respect for any other faith. I can say that scientology is the most idiotic faith ever invented. I can say that Mormonism is almost as idiotic but redeemed by the fact that every single mormon I have known has been a good person. I can even say that I cannot believe in Islam because I cannot follow a god that does not to prevent his chief prophet from having sex with a 9 year old girl. (Mohammed’s wife Aisha. Look it up if you didn’t know.) none of those statements are respectful and each of them are my right. If we had to be respectful then South Park would be off the air.
Freedom of religion and a requirement that we respect other religions are incompatible concepts. Freedom of religion is the freedom to choose your religion. The freedom to choose your religion is the right to speak freely about religion, so that you can freely receive information about each religion. Let each of the faithful say, if they are inclined, “my religion is right. All the other ones suck. Here is why.” Let the atheists shorten to that to “all religions suck. Here is why.” Let each free will decide which religions belief system, if any, makes sense to them. nothing else is the American way.
And absent our war these idiots would have a right to erect a statute of Osama bin Laden next to the WTC if they were inclined. It is only because we are at war that we have a compelling interest in preventing them from putting up this mosque, if only our elected leaders had the cajones and intelligence to assert that interest.
@Hoosier, since we haven't had heavy and light cavalry for quite some time, your last quip probably went over everyone's head.
Not everyones!
A.W., I addressed the substance of your comment. The only way to interpret a mosque as a "white flag of surrender" is if you believe the United States is at war with Islam. It is not, you are ignorant, good night.
p.s. AW -- if you can provide substantiation to the claim that the mosque is "Al Qaeda funded" you should really call FOX, because they would pay you. A lot. For that story.
As it is, you're just another lying smear artist.
Monty
> A.W., I addressed the substance of your comment.
Really? Where did you address that it was named for an islamic victory over christians? Or that it was funded by al Qaeda?
and indeed you impute to me an attitude i specifically deny.
who exactly do you think you are fooling?
Monty, i did provide substantiation... two threads ago:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=305012969242415545
keep scrolling, slowpoke.
Oh and notice, monty, that is the first time you even talk about the possibility that this is an AQ funded mosque. you don't think that matters. you think we were letting the Germans build buildings in new york in 1942?
So you didn't even talk about it until then, but you claim you addressed my arguments, that my arguments necessarily required me to believe that all muslims everywhere were my enemy, etc. Yeah, well we know that was a fraud. you were just doing the old bigotry baiting because you had no response.
And still don't.
Hey AW-- hate to break it to you, but Pamela Geller is a propagandist and that supposed "proof" of Al Qaeda funding is garbage.
You are just looking for a reason. Here's an idea: get a life.
Monty;
If there is single argument against building a mosque that doesn't spring from anti-muslim sentiment, I have yet to hear it. Al Qaeda is not able to speak in the name of Islam as a whole. The hijackers killed in the name of Islam, but that doesn't make all muslims responsible.
I don't think you've read many of the comments accurately. Look again
Hey Monty - Pamela Gellar is a propagandist defined by whom? Left-wingers of course.
Monty
> Hey AW-- hate to break it to you, but Pamela Geller is a propagandist and that supposed "proof" of Al Qaeda funding is garbage.
Ah what a shock. I give you proof and you don’t believe.
> You are just looking for a reason. Here's an idea: get a life.
Ah, and now you are psychic. /sarc You are just engaged in bigotry baiting. Proof you know you lost this argument. So all you have left are ad homs.
Hoosier;
Why is it when I hear the phrase "light cavalry" I pictures very small soldiers on little ponies?
Seriously, Pamela Geller is stone cold nuts. I wouldn't take anything she says at face value. Why would I? Why would anyone with a moderate grasp of reality?
She's been caught in outrageous lies dozens of times, still claims "Obama is a Muslim," and makes her living Muslim-baiting. Entertain yourself with her blog all you want, but if you think that she is a source of reputable information you are far gone around the bend and there isn't much point in having a conversation. Just find a park bench and shout at the pigeons.
Monty - Josh Marshall of TPM is stone cold nuts. I wouldn't trust a single thing he says. See how easy it is?
AW - MM started off loosing the argument when one of his first comments in defense of his inapt analogy of the Japenese-American friendship center contained unfounded (yes, they were completely unfounded and proof of your own bigotry, MM) personal attacks. Once you have to use personal attacks, you've got nothing else.
Monty
By the way, you accuse me of “just looking for reason.” But if you were at all interested in looking into the matter all you would have to do is google “Ground Zero Mosque Al Qaeda.” First link there.
By the way, for everyone else’s benefit, this is the link: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/terror-finded-ground-zero-mosque-imam-raufs-bin-laden-link.html
So you discounted the entire argument without ANY ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE TRUTH OF IT. in fact, without addressing it at all before saying that none of our arguments could possibly work without condemning all Muslims.
That’s all the left does these days. They have no confidence in discussing the merits on anything, so they just say, “if you disagree with me, you are clearly a bigot.” About 80% of Missourians declared that they hate the mandate in obamacare, so I guess they are all bigots, too, right?
AW - the reason libs like Monty think they can get away with the name-calling is they exist in reality-distortion field bubbles of like-minded folks. If you happen to live in Greenwich Village, why should you NOT be a raving leftist loon? Everyone else is and nods their head along with any loony thing you say.
Alex
Well, i don't know about that, but i probably shouldn't call him out so much on it. after all it is pretty clear that democrats are really hurting themselves by acting this way.
I mean by his logic the majority of new yorkers are bigots. not to mention the country.
That's now how you persuade people. "Stop believing that you ignorant bigot."
Alex
Ah, smacked by the typo fairy. i meant to say:
> That's NOT how you persuade people. "Stop believing that you ignorant bigot."
The lefties will continue to say things meant for consumption of their raving lefty loony friends. They care not a whit whether it plays well with swing voter types. Notice that when Obama was running for POTUS in 2008 he didn't use the same incendiary language on a regular basis as the typical leftist. Sure there were gaffes like "bitter clingers", but he didn't repeat it. He actually was very Clintonian as a candidate.
Drill SGT - "Seen many Dominicans around with hot irons lately?
How about AQ guys with swords?
which is more likely to be hunting Jews this century?"
====================
Jews don't seem to have a problem admitting either group. Since 1965, Jews have led the Open Borders efforts.
Jews get killed, it's sort of like the 3 nuns down around DC active in the Sanctuary Movement getting killed by a drunk illegal alien driver. Who had two previous drink driving convictions, driving w no insurance/license convictions and was free on bond appealing his deportation orders.
Surviving nuns declared it was "wrong" to focus on the Bolivian being here illegally as "any drunken American could have caused the same tragedy".
Liberal jews have long wanted to transform America into a socialized, whites in the minority, christian expresion controlled, firearms only in Gov't hands sort of society.
That is why so many influential Jews in NYC are rolling out the Mosque welcome mat under their mantras of tolerance, "diversity is strength", noble immigrants all!
The ones opposing the Mosque tend to be Christians in and outside NYC - save the Viva La raza Catholics and blueblood liberal Methodists that still minister over deserted churches.
Liberal jews have always seen white Christians as a bigger threat in America to them than noble minorities, even "Muslims of a great, noble heritage". (Jews believed until Israel was a State again that Muslims and Jews were a natural fit, not so Jews and European Christians)
Yeah, Muslims in America jews played a big role in bringing in in massive numbers will eventually strike Jewish targets...Bloomberg and Schumer and Freidman's fantasies of a new Muslim-Jew collaboration like in Spain or under the Caliphate nonwithstanding.
Hoist once again on their own petard. Though likely nothing like the eventual blowback Jews got for pushing social anarchism and Bolshevikism.
c3 said...
Hoosier;
Why is it when I hear the phrase "light cavalry" I pictures very small soldiers on little ponies?
That is accurate. There was in fact some grading of both horses and men. Hussars tended to be smaller men on the smaller horses doing scouting jobs.
You saved the big horses with big riders for the Heavy Cav roles. a Big man, with a heavy saber, on a big horse had a natural elevation advantage and his horse could out muscle yours.... If he could catch you. Shock, rather than scouting and pursuit.
Grenadiers were historically larger than normal men.
Russian tankers were all 5' 5" or less to fit smaller Russian Tanks.
the shortest men, eligible for the Army's Old Guard is 5'10"
Cedar
Oh, God, leave your "jews control the world" crap at the door, please?
Palladian offered a great analogy yesterday, comparing the building of this community center so close to the WTC site with the Phelps clan picketing a soldier's funeral.
For the most part, the media has chosen to ignore the Phelps protests, which is probably the best that one can hope for, given that they feast on attention.
Efforts to counter them with legal means have proven fruitless, and you can't shame the Phelps clan.
I don't like that the Phelps clan protests at funerals, but I realize that I can't do anything about it, so I live with it. When they threatened to protest at my church, I was upset, and while I wanted to come up with some means of countering them, I had to agree that such efforts were not worth pursuing.
My problem with the rhetoric against the Cordoba center is that it appears to be fanning the flames of resentment with little chance of actually affecting the outcome.
The Althouse/Williams position is an easy one to take. Heck, I'll take it too.
It just doesn't do anything.
More and more, when I read a Tom Friedman column, I feel like I'm reading a parody of a Tom Friedman column.
biff, i have that feeling between the onion and cnn.
So now Republicans want to establish Muslim-free zones and keep their houses of worship from certain parts of the city.
What's next? A Muslim Ghetto?
It's strategically stupid, as well. It does us no god to make enemies of all Muslim people. Hell, Osama bin Laden must be very pleased by the Republican action! He hates moderate Muslims, as well.
Such stupid bigotry.
comparing the building of this community center so close to the WTC site with the Phelps clan picketing a soldier's funeral.
That's just plain stupid.
The Muslims are minding their own business. They are insulting no-one.
Phelps insults most everybody.
Oh, I know what you guys say. The presence of a Muslim mosque upsets some people.
Tough shit! If you are bigoted you will have to deal with your bigotry when you come across the people you hate. That's your own fucking problem and no reason to strip Muslims of the freedom of religion.
Alpha, No analogy is perfect. I like Palladian's analogy in terms of how we think about the response.
There's no question that Phelps is trying to offend as much as possible. Picketing gay funerals wasn't getting enough of a reaction, so they started up with the soldiers.
I'm not trying to draw that parallel to the people behind the Cordoba project, though some here seem to think that they are trying to be offensive with their choice of location.
My point is, even if they were trying to cause offense, what could you do about it?
There is no right to not be offended.
I agree with your last line there, Peter. It is sensible.
Even if your comparison is offensive, itself!
There are many New York’s. There are the wine sipping, opera going, Four Seasons lunching, summering in the Hamptons ultra liberal New York that it typified by such as Mayor Nanny Bloomberg and our own resident elitist hdhouse. There is the ethnic New York of the hot Dominican Beat of Washington Heights, the Yiddisher mama pushing a baby carriage in Borough Park and the guido washing his Camaro in the driveway of his attached Staten Island abode. They might pass each other on the street but they live in different worlds.
There is another New York. The one of the hard working and hard drinking Irish Americans who lives in Mill Basin or Gerritsen Beach or Belle Harbor or the Rockaway’s. The sons and grandsons of immigrants they provided the backbone of the civil service for the last century. Policeman, transit workers, sanitation men and most of all fireman. This is the New York that bore the brunt of the murders on 911. Some families lost fathers and sons. Some lost grandsons who were third generation on the job. But almost everyone in that New York was touched and tortured by the murders committed that day by these ignorant barbarians.
When Mayor Bloomberg first came into office he had the police ticket everybody who was tailgating in the Shea Stadium parking lot. They were standing in front of a grill eating a hot dog and drinking a beer before a playoff game against the Braves. Something that they had done for many years before. But Nanny Bloomberg wanted to give them tickets for having an open container. Three thousand people got a summons. Later that week there was a performance of Shakespeare in the Park. Many of the elite came with little picnic basket complete with a nice little bottle of wine. Consuming alcohol in public in exactly the same manner as the Mets fans. When questioned as to why they were not given summons for basically the same activity, the Mayor said “It was a different kind of crowd.” His arrogance and contempt was palpable. You see they were not part of Bloomberg’s New York. He doesn’t recognize any other New York as having any rights and scoffs at their concerns.
When they had the concert to honor the Fireman at the Garden after 911 a great many people who despise cops and fireman came to cry crocodile tears as though they gave a shit about the workingmen who put their lives on the line. Liberal icons like Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins and Hillary Clinton came to pretend that they cared. But that was nine years ago and they have moved on to other things. The courage and sacrifice of the men and women who died that day are a distant memory of an unpleasant time that they had to pay lip service to the hoi polloi. The families who lost a father or a son or a brother will just have to get over it. After all we must cement our reputation as the liberal bastion of diversity and political correctness. Nanny Bloomberg could not find the time to rebuild the Pit but he has the time to celebrate this mosque and indoctrination center financed by the same philosophy and resources that led to this mass murder.
So he has won his victory. The victory dance of joy for the deaths in the Towers has come just a few blocks away from the site of these foul murders. Diversity politics and political correctness has carried the day once again. A sense of shame and compassion for the grief of other New Yorkers is old news these days. You see the people who died that day are not part of the Liberal’s New York. They don’t matter. They are the enemy. Not the barbarians who fly planes into towers and behead journalists and stone women and rip the clits out of little babies. They are the ones we must not offend. Theirs are the sensibility we have to cater to in all we do. No other feelings need be considered.
Some day there will be a reckoning.
They might find that they have reaped the whirlwind.
Bloomberg is a liberal?
"A Mosque at ground zero??? That's like building a Japanese-American friendship center at Hiroshima!!!!!!!!"
Wait, what? When did we surrender to Bin Laden? Did I miss that in the news?
Or are you saying that the Muslims more generally are our conquerors?
What's the point of your analogy?
Policeman, transit workers, sanitation men and most of all fireman. This is the New York that bore the brunt of the murders on 911.
Connecting your name with the horse thread, don't forget the Irishmen in the US Cavalry that tamed the West in the second half of the 19th century. Men like SGM O'Rourke
Gary Owen!!
Trooper York,
Great comment.
I wish I knew who you were back when I lived in Brooklyn.
Me? I like "We Con The World"
where "the truth will never makes its way to your tv"
More honest.
Call me a cynic. That's ok.
But I do believe justice will prevail. Some eon.
"garage mahal said...
Bloomberg is a liberal?"
Garage you must be kidding. He is the ultimate in nanny state liberalism. He wants to control what you eat and what you drink and almost every aspect of your life. The only reason why he ran as a Republican was because Mark Green had the Democratic primary wired and he was able to buy the Republican nomination. Much like Tom Golisano is doing in the race for governor. The reason why Bloomberg won was that after 911, even New York couldn't face another ultra-liberal like Mark Green. So they went with the rich country club RINO.
Bloomberg is about as conservative as you are Garage.
@Trooper, really wonderful comment.
Devout Muslims, as I have seen, much more so than evangelical Christians, seem to be quite opposed to the gay lifestyle; have a pretty mysogonistic view of women and don't exactly preach much in the way of tolerance toward other religions and have quite a...ahem...strong opinion about those of the Jewish persuasion.
I wonder how you, as a liberal, square those attitudes with what appears to be your very fervent support of this group.
Hoosier Daddy conflates the extension or protection of rights without bigotry to the creation of political alliances or worse.
This is why the right cannot be trusted to understand, let alone defend, liberal democracy. The protection of a right is not a defense of how it is used.
If you must first decide that rights can only be extended to and protected on behalf of those who suit your own interests, you are a selective libertarian, and a selective defender of freedom. And that means said person must also therefore be a selective authoritarian.
There is no room for any authoritarianism in an open society.
BTW, I like what Trooper said. I'm not sure I agree with it fully, but it was well stated.
Take a lesson.
If the right wants to get anywhere beyond a single election cycle, they might want to start learning to have less contempt for the people they are trying to persuade, and less contempt for humanity in general.
Trooper:
You just did your best work ever brother. I will put that in an email and see if it can go around the world.
There is no right to not be offended.
Glad Alpha agrees. Now when do I get to go back to using the "n-word," and saying words like "wetback," "dago," "dyke," and "polack"?
Or is the right not to see offensive sights and hear offensive words limited to people with whom Alpha and peter hoh are in sympathy?
But I got to say that that whole inquisition deal was seven or eight centuries ago and I'm pretty sure even the victims have forgotten about it.
Well, the victims are all dead by now anyway - either of old age or at the hands of the inquisitors. But I'm not so sure Hitler did. Then again, Hitler could probably count, also (unlike our timekeeper above). You'll remember that the Nazis were meticulous at keeping records.
Glad Alpha agrees. Now when do I get to go back to using the "n-word," and saying words like "wetback," "dago," "dyke," and "polack"?
Or is the right not to see offensive sights and hear offensive words limited to people with whom Alpha and peter hoh are in sympathy?
No. But it does say something about the person choosing to use them.
But it's nothing we'd have put past you anyway, BM.
Choosing to find power in a certain pejorative epithet says something about the person making use of it. Without a doubt.
"The only way to interpret a mosque as a "white flag of surrender" is if you believe the United States is at war with Islam. It is not, you are ignorant, good night."
You can politically correct it all you want but while the United States does not fight religious wars, other nations and peoples do.
Muslims do. A shitload of them. And the ones who do not are either unwilling or unable to stop those that do and, in fact, enable them to a great extent.
When we as a nation wake up to this fact, we might just win the war. Until then, however, we're just doing our best to keep it as far away from our shores as possible.
Big Mike: Or is the right not to see offensive sights and hear offensive words limited to people with whom Alpha and peter hoh are in sympathy?
I just got done saying that Fred Phelps has the right to demonstrate in his highly offensive style.
We have no right to insist that we not be offended.
I stand by that.
And I will support, and patronize, the pulled pork and strip club you are proposing for the other side of the street.
TRO exemplifies everything that is wrong with the right-wing base's approach to geopolitics and Islam.
The right is obsessed with beating others at their own game, but they never figure out how to re-define the rules according to terms that are favorable to them. This is why they always lose.
If some Muslims see violent jihad against the U.S. as a religious obligation, so what? Perhaps their religion's in store for a reformation of sorts. You honestly think that forcing every rank-and-file Muslim (of the more than a billion out there) to make a narrow choice between their religion and America makes sense? Especially in the "land of the free"? How's that going to work?
Sheer idiocy. All that does is make them lose respect for us and our ideals out of an obvious hypocrisy.
Militants need to be engaged on the most effective terms possible. Sometimes that will be militarily, sometimes through criminal prosecution. But assuming that Islam has some challenges coming to terms with modernity and liberal democracy, you honestly think that's the way you change a religion? Of a billion people? By declaring a war against all of them?
America only has 300 million people up against that billion. One side seems to be more popular and successful at gaining adherents than the other.
So if mutual demonization is your game, methinks you'd better re-think your strategy. And brute force might make some queasy after you take out the first, oh, I'd say hundred million or so.
You cannot influence anyone you are not willing to live with, let alone seek accommodation with.
Choosing to find power in a certain pejorative epithet says something about the person making use of it. Without a doubt.
I had to smile when I read that, Ritmo, considering that I have never seen you get through an entire thread without resorting to perjorative epithets.
"Policeman, transit workers, sanitation men and most of all fireman. This is the New York that bore the brunt of the murders on 911."
Last I read, it was regular civilians not government employees wearing their uniforms - that bore the brunt of it.
And it was not murders, but an unlawful enemy attack.
The people who did the attack did so convinced under their moral system that it was a highly moral act that gained them entrance to Heaven. The surviving 9/11 Plotters conceed they violated Western laws of war and are understandably hunted now by the US military....but consider their war declared in 1998 and a righteous and holy whacking of enemy military, finance, and government centers - a response to past American-Israeli aggression.
Not that I would not be happy to push the launch button on a Hellfire missile if Binnie was ever located - but that is our enemy's thinking. And the enemy are not a group of criminals. They are a group of dangerous religious ideologues.
And I will support, and patronize, the pulled pork and strip club you are proposing for the other side of the street.
I wasn't planning on doing that, but thanks for the thought.
I had to smile when I read that, Ritmo, considering that I have never seen you get through an entire thread without resorting to perjorative epithets.
Perhaps not. But they were certainly never directed against any characteristic or circumstance that can't be overcome or changed with a brain, thought and sufficient effort.
Too bad we can't say the same for your choice epithets.
I guess constantly finding irreducible clusters of humanity into which you can divide permanent enemies is more your game, though.
It's also a fool's errand. That's why the names have to keep being changed.
Diversity? What are the possibilities of this Mosque having a gay outreach program?
Seriously.
The right thing to do is buy the mosque and build a financial center over it.
The right thing to do was to have had the Port Authority buy that property for St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and exchange it for the property St Nicholas owns near Tower 2, and they would have met a legitimate need.
I want to open a Hooters inside a WalMart in Mecca. I gotcher diversity right here Friedman.
Cordoba Initiative, taking into account the dismay of many Americans over their plans a mosque and cross-cultural center, has agreed to sell the property they acquired near Ground Zero to St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church as a sign of goodwill and their understanding and awareness of the significance of Ground Zero to New Yorkers and America.
(I have an active imagination.)
JAL,
Whether they sell the real estate or not, the mosque and cultural center will never be built at that location.
Hoosier;
Why is it when I hear the phrase "light cavalry" I pictures very small soldiers on little ponies?
That is accurate....
Wow, now I know....
THE REST OF THE STORY
Thanks for the history lesson (seriously)
Hoosier Daddy conflates the extension or protection of rights without bigotry to the creation of political alliances or worse
And once again Ritmo blows in to demonstrate his lack of reading comprehension.
No Ritmo, I only wish some clarification from the liberals who jump at the chance to denigrate Christians or Christianity either through punditry or art yet prostrate themselves in the defense of a religion reknowned for its lack of respect for 'infidels's gays, women.
But do please continue your pointless pontifications.
MM,
You do not speak for all NYC residents. The ones in my neighborhood, solidly Dem, are adamantly against the mosque being built there and as NYC residents they have as much right as you do to speak out.
But assuming that Islam has some challenges coming to terms with modernity and liberal democracy, you honestly think that's the way you change a religion? Of a billion people? By declaring a war against all of them?
Well I would settle for ostracization from polite society. I would say Islam has a lot of challenges with modernity and liberalism although when those like you on the leftwing simply embrace thier lack of tolerance for all things liberal as just another fiber of thier 'rich cultural tapestry' perhaps they don't feel the need to liberalize.
Then that has always been the problem with the Left, the bigotry of low expectations of those who haven't quite climbled up that ladder of societal evolution. Better to just 'overlook' those beheadings, honor killings, execution of gays and mysogny that seem to permeate the religion.
It must feel wonderful for you guys to finally find a religion you can embrace.
The quality of the arguments by the liberals on this list is truly appalling. Is this really the best they can do?
They just seem like pompous, moralizing, inexperienced adolescents.
No Ritmo, I only wish some clarification from the liberals who jump at the chance to denigrate Christians or Christianity either through punditry or art yet prostrate themselves in the defense of a religion reknowned for its lack of respect for 'infidels's gays, women.
You seem proud to have expectations of your own tradition as low as you have for Islam. Nice going!
Well I would settle for ostracization from polite society.
Seeing how their "society" is four times larger than your own, good luck with that whole ostracization thing.
I would say Islam has a lot of challenges with modernity and liberalism although when those like you on the leftwing simply embrace thier lack of tolerance for all things liberal as just another fiber of thier 'rich cultural tapestry' perhaps they don't feel the need to liberalize.
There you go again confusing the protection of a right with an endorsement of how that right is used.
You just aren't really all that interested in the Bill of Rights these days, are you?
Then that has always been the problem with the Left, the bigotry of low expectations of those who haven't quite climbled up that ladder of societal evolution. Better to just 'overlook' those beheadings, honor killings, execution of gays and mysogny that seem to permeate the religion.
I wasn't aware that such acts were endemic in America. But if their perpetuation abroad bothers you so much, feel free to launch wars in order to extend the protection of empire to each trouble spot. Just be sure to garner the support of the country beforehand and throughout, as you failed to do from 2006 onward after it became evident you had lied your way into receiving that support.
Why do you hate America so? I mean, I know you hate Islam more, but maybe if you actually cared for America and its ideals then your hatred of Islam might actually be understandable.
"Cedar
Oh, God, leave your "jews control the world" crap at the door, please?"
But then what would he have left to jerk off over in his flophouse room after his workday at the glory hole?
You seem proud to have expectations of your own tradition as low as you have for Islam. Nice going!
Boy you really do have a reading comprehension problem don't you?
Seeing how their "society" is four times larger than your own, good luck with that whole ostracization thing.
Well seeing how the Islamic world consists of 1 billion people and the rest of the world is 5 billion, methinks your math is as bad as your reading comprehension.
There you go again confusing the protection of a right with an endorsement of how that right is used.
You just aren't really all that interested in the Bill of Rights these days, are you?
I'm sorry what protection of rights do Muslims in say, Saudi Arabia have? Or Iran? Did they adopt a bill of rights yesterday and I missed it? Its those Muslim areas that need to liberalize, not Anywhere, USA. Please do try and keep up.
I wasn't aware that such acts were endemic in America. But if their perpetuation abroad bothers you so much, feel free to launch wars in order to extend the protection of empire to each trouble spot.
Well I'm not one for wars of liberation as much as I am for guaranteeing national security. Then again thank you for making my point in that Islam seems to have trouble with modernization and liberalization. Those acts obviously don't bother you at all I see and your implication is that we just accept it, which is of course the liberal way.
Why do you hate America so? I mean, I know you hate Islam more, but maybe if you actually cared for America and its ideals then your hatred of Islam might actually be understandable.
Yes Ritmo I hate America because I want to keep it and its way of life safe from the very Islamic militants who want to see it destroyed and who you appear to be cheering on. I always thought debating you was like pissing in the wind. Thanks for proving it.
Post a Comment