Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Another Ground Zero Controversy

Recs

41

August 15, 2010 – Comments (82)

This might be controversial, but hopefully not offensive.  If you are offended by this, you are most likely part of the problem.  If TMF finds it necessary to remove this post, so be it.   Americans somehow think it's a right to only have nice things said about them and things they like. 

I find it tragically comic that an Islamic center might be built near Ground Zero before the American Ruling Class can figure out how to build a replacement structure there.  In fact, if I were a Muslim (I'm not. I'm agnostic, if you must know.), I might take special delight in hearing the call to prayer as I saunter past what used to be the greatest center of commerce in world history.  Most Muslims, however, do not feel that way.  In fact, I can say that I know for sure that most Muslims wish the whole thing had never happened.  The man behind the mosque plan is one of those Muslims, however you never know what is in a man's heart.  I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to live in peace. 

The reaction to Rauf's plan has been particularly interesting to me.  As usual, the Neo-Con Communist wing of the Republican Party - those responsible for the greatest treason perpetrated in our lifetime - have used to opportunity to further their agenda of mercantilism at home and subjugation and hatred of all people brown everywhere.  I really, really, really hate the Neo-Cons (Krauthammer, Brooks, Buckley, Cheney, Rove, Gingrich, Graham, McConnell, GWB - to name a few who should be arrested for murder and treason.) 

But I don't believe that most Americans listen to the Neo-Cons.  I do realize that about 25% of people that vote Republican support their agenda of endless war against the bogeyman for the sake of prosperity, but that's not a lot of people.  (It's still 25% too many, however.)  After all, few people vote (thank God), and only half of those vote Republican. 

I think for most Americans, the uncomfortable aspect of an Islamic center near Ground Zero is the picture it paints of America itself.  It forces us to remember that the Ruling Class is so incredibly incompetent.  However, the problem is that many Americans have not figured out the rulers of America in no way represent the average American.  Therefore, the average American still equates Ruling Class incompetence as a reflection of their own incompetence.  It is a source of "national" embarrassment that there is still a gaping hole in the ground ten years later.  It shouldn't be.  The fact that our nation is run by total losers should be embarrasing.  However the fact that these losers can't do anything right should be expected.

A while back, probably around last year's 9/11 anniversary, a fellow blogger asked why no structure has replaced the fallen towers.  I replied as follows:

When the World Trade Center towers were built, there was a purpose for them.  They served a market need.  The fact they were built in the first place is part of what Hayek would call the marvel of spontaneous order.  There was a need for office space and people with the vision to fill that need. 

What is the purpose now?  No one knows.  To build a memorial?  If so, I'm surprised it has taken this long.  About the only thing that bureuacrats do well is build memorials.  They get a lot of practice, with all the people they send off to the slaughter to fulfill their sociopathic visions.  (This element of practice makes perfect might explain why Europe has so many beautiful parks and memorials.)  But if the purpose is to fulfill some vague sense of national catharsis, then I fully expect a lifeless, disjointed, and ugly structure, if and when it ever does get built.  There is no national consciousness.  Only individuals can have a conscious. 

In conclusion, I hope Americans won't be roped in by the hatred being fostered for political gain.  I'm already getting anti-Muslim emails from friends back home, denouncing this plan as if the Anti-Christ himself were marching on NYC.  If Americans want to get riled up about anything, they should take a closer look at the complete losers running the country - The Ruling Class.   More on them in the next post.

David in Qatar

82 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

David:

You need another vacation.  Eat some icecream.  Take a long walk.  Read a good novel.  Watch some baseball.  You are slipping over the edge.

Report this comment
#2) On August 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Donnernv,

I'm a Cubs fan.  How the heck is watching that supposed to help?

:)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On August 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

Seriously, David, I respect your work and read every blog you post.  I seldom respond because there is no disagreement.

But this one is too far over the edge.

The reaction to Rauf's plan has been particularly interesting to me.  As usual, the Neo-Con Communist wing of the Republican Party - those responsible for the greatest treason perpetrated in our lifetime - have used to opportunity to further their agenda of mercantilism at home and subjugation and hatred of all people brown everywhere.  I really, really, really hate the Neo-Cons (Krauthammer, Brooks, Buckley, Cheney, Rove, Gingrich, Graham, McConnell, GWB - to name a few who should be arrested for murder and treason.) 

Come on now!

Report this comment
#4) On August 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, blesto (30.88) wrote:

Controversial? Yep. Offensive? Nah.

I always welcome and appreciate your point of view.

Being sheeplike as I am, I try to keep an open mind. As for hearing the call to prayer in the middle of NYC. Doesn't the city have noise ordinances they enforce?

Report this comment
#5) On August 15, 2010 at 12:48 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Donnernv,

I've always felt that way about them. And I've taken the hammer to the Neo-Cons in previous posts and comments with as much viciousness :)  

Sorry to offend, but that's the way I feel. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#6) On August 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM, BurntTiger (21.60) wrote:

this might have something to do with the fact that muslim terrorists routinly use mousques as safe houses/ weapon caches, ect.  im not saying they shuldnt be allowed to build it but surely they anticipated this reaction.  the fact that they knew the would get this reaction but continued anyway is a big screw you to grieving americans.  and the call the prayer is annoying as crap,

Report this comment
#7) On August 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

blesto,

Have I called you a sheep before?  I hope not, but if I did I apologize.  You're alright :)

BurntTiger,

Your argument is that guns don't kill people, mosques do? Muslims have a right to defend themselves.  And they absolutely have a right to stash their weapons on their property as they please. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#8) On August 15, 2010 at 1:45 PM, blesto (30.88) wrote:

No you never did, I did. I'm just refering to the attitudes of some bloggers, and I have to agree we are all sheeplike in some of our behaviors.

I'm a member of the Foolish herd so to speak, but capable of revising my positions and opinions on things. Because no one has the absolute truth no matter how much they believe it. There are grains of pure truth in all opinions. I'm l still learning to sift them out.(That's the scientist in me,even though I have no formal training) So no matter what the world is doing I can only be me and do what I do to the best of my ability.

Geez, I'm getting to little deep for my own good. Stop me. Puleez!

Report this comment
#9) On August 15, 2010 at 1:49 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

I'm a Cubs fan.  How the heck is watching that supposed to help?

Trust me it won't :)

David while I don't neccessarily agree with you. I always read and rec your posts, since they are well thought out and you convey your opinion.

 I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to live in peace. 

this is where we disagree, it is my view that this was done deliberatly as a slap to the face of all Americans. Would some one who wants to live peacefully even start the controversy they surely knew would transpire.

Report this comment
#10) On August 15, 2010 at 2:04 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

blesto,

Like I said, you're alright!  We should always reserve the right to change our minds at any time when we come upon new information.  I know it seems hard to believe now, but 10 years ago I was the most patriotic, America's rulers know best, kind of guy you'd ever meet.  I obviously have gone completely off the deep end :)

msftgev,

Well, thanks for reading and contemplating my point of view.  My question is, how long would Rauf have to wait before it was OK to open the Islamic center before it was no longer viewed in this way?  And to follow up, what if the WTC had been rebuilt five years ago, would you feel the same way about this?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#11) On August 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

David,

 no problem I always try to keep an open mind to all viewpoints, thank you for writing yours.

I geuss my point was that, opening up a mosque at ground zero is just looking for trouble at any time.

Does he have the right to do so, absolutley. As long as no illegal activities take place.

I would say the majority of Muslims are peaceful people. This just does not seem like the act of someone looking for peace. 

Report this comment
#12) On August 15, 2010 at 3:01 PM, fransgeraedts (99.91) wrote:

I am getting confused. Is Rauf not an American?

fransgeraedts

Report this comment
#13) On August 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, I guess I should have opened the link before chiming in. Sorry saw a Cubs reference and could'nt help myself.

Since Rauf wants to bridge the gap between Muslim and Christian ideology would'nt you say this is more of a publicity stunt that may divide the two?

Am I offended by any of this, no.

Just seems like trying to piss your neighbors off dos'nt seem like a good idea to me.

Report this comment
#14) On August 15, 2010 at 3:46 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

I'm a Cubs fan

This explains alot.

And they absolutely have a right to stash their weapons on their property as they please. 

I think it is pushing it arguing in favor of maintaining any kind of arsenal in a purported house of worship.  While I do find a blanket prejudice against Muslims in general distasteful, a basically Muslim organization is at war with the US.

Report this comment
#15) On August 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM, goalie37 (90.66) wrote:

My question to those opposed to the mosque is this -

There are groups in America that call themselves Christians.  I am thinking specifically of the church that regularly protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers.  I would presume that 99% of American Christians do not support them, and are in fact appalled by them.  Al Qaeda, I am sure, is equally offensive to the world's Muslim population.  Terrorists will use any ideology available to commit their crimes.  So what if the World Trade Center had been attacked by terrorists calling themselves Christians?  Would their be an outcry opposing any churches in the area?

Report this comment
#16) On August 15, 2010 at 5:44 PM, leohaas (31.21) wrote:

David,

I would not have used your words (in particular the term Communist Republican is an oxymoron considering the paranoia among most Repblicans about Communism), but I mostly agree with this blog. That is a miracle in and of itself...

I'd like to add that our Government has no business preventing a religious organization from building a place of worship. I strongly believe we have an Amendment to the Constitution saying something along those lines (I may be wrong about this; after all I am a liberal and what do liberals know about interpreting the Constitution...)

"But I don't believe that most Americans listen to the Neo-Cons.  I do realize that about 25% of people that vote Republican support their agenda of endless war against the bogeyman for the sake of prosperity, but that's not a lot of people."

Here you are wrong. Almost all of the people who vote Republican-no-matter-what are in this category!

Report this comment
#17) On August 15, 2010 at 6:02 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

The Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity as Al Qaeda is to Islam. To protest this cultural center makes no sense. It would be like protesting the construction of a YMCA across the street from the scene of a mass lynching.

I admit to thinking the powers in charge of building this cultural center seem to suffer from a severe lack of foresight. I wish they would have avoided this controversy and found some other location not so close to this still open wound. 

Report this comment
#18) On August 15, 2010 at 6:24 PM, tfirst (25.42) wrote:

Doesn't the book of Islaam tell them to build mosques at the sites of Military victories?...... Freedom of religeon means that the government won't sponsor one religeon over another, that's all. It does not mean one can take down religeous symbols....Freedom of speech is the right of citizens to criticize the government. Your freedom of speech ends where my freedom is to punch you in the nose..This example is not a violation of free speech rights, it is simple assault.  If New Yorkers really don't want the mosque there, they should open a dog park next door, or just cover the place in lard. Once contaminated I don't think they can use it anymore. Does anyone remember General "Black Jack" Pershing and how he dealt with the Islaamic problem in WW1?   Check history and realize how soft we've become.

Report this comment
#19) On August 15, 2010 at 6:38 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

msftgev,

would'nt you say this is more of a publicity stunt that may divide the two?

Hmm, I guess that's possible. I don't think anyone is immune to desire to seek out attention and maybe Rauf is doing some attention-seeking here.  But I don't think it can be decided a priori.  I think my main problem is that the people telling me that this is a slap in the face to America (I'm referring to the Neo-conmen), could not care less about Americans and have made that abundantly clear.  So I'm more p*ssed at them then I am at Rauf even if I come to find out he's just a publicity hog.

awallejr,

a basically Muslim organization is at war with the US. 

I disagree with this assessment.  And I think I have some experience to back this up.  After all, not only am I familiar with Muslim culture, I also was an embassy guard in Islamabad around the time that Bin Laden started blowing them up.  Back then, the assessment that it was a foreign policy problem of blowback and a group of criminals that America armed now making a power play.  It was never discussed as a "war with Muslims" until the Neo-cons reframed the debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

goalie37,

I'm not sure that the analogy works completely, but I agree with the overall theme of the argument.  Thanks for your thoughts.

leohaas,

Well I think there's more that we agree on than we disagree.  I want to address the appearant contradiction of calling a sect of Republicans communistic. 

I stand by this statement.  This comes from a view of political history in America, and not one you are going to get in a classroom.  But it is fact nonetheless. I hope you'll google some of the names and events that I'm about to talk about.   At the onset of the Cold War, a group of conservatives broke apart from the Old Right.  They were led by men like Irving Kristol and William Buckley.  They used the fear of Communist takeover of America to cement a new position of leadership in the Republican party.  They advocated sweeping new powers for the federal government: an interventionist foreign policy, expanded role of the CIA, creation of the NSA, expanded spying on Americans, etc..  All to protect us from the Total State.  In Buckley's own words, "we must become the total state to defeat the total state." 

During the Vietnam War, the Neo-cons - slithery snakes that will always be - allied themselves with the Democrats.  They supported LBJ, carpet bombing, the draft, etc.  Privately they spoke of this new alliance as a matter of convenience.  Men like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nathan Glazer, and Norman Podhoretz led the call to join forces with the Social Democrats to strenthen support for the Vietnam War and the fight against Communism.

After the failure of Vietnam, these sickos were mostly outcast in policy circles, but they never went away.  In the early 90's a new generation of neo-conservatives led by William Buckley's piece of crap son Bill Buckly, the aforemention Brooks and Krauthammer and Frum serving as the mouthpieces, restarted the movement.  With the cold war ending, they saw a new enemy that they could use to increase their own standing - Muslim extremists.

The first administration to give these wackos an ear was Clinton's.  They urged him to be aggressive with the Serbians and display American air power for all to see.  They hated George Bush Sr. - a man they considered a traitor to the cause (Bush Sr. was a CIA man and his refusal to take down Saddam was a lightning rod for the neocons.)

Spurred by America's phyrric victory in the Balkans, this second generation of neocons had a place at the table in Washington... and a stupid President ready to listen.  With the Republican party in power, the neocons had finally come home - back to where it all started. 

And now they're tyring to cozy up to Obama, as Glen Greenwald and Justin Raimondo have reported repeatedly to deaf ears among the liberal voting base.  War with Iran is their goal.  So far, God bless him, Obama has not acted.  But he's caved on some of their wishes - particularly the increasing use of American military personnel and aircraft in Pakistan, further spiraling that country into total chaos.

Perhaps you can see why I hate them so much?

catoismymotor,

As always, a balanced and pragmatic approach to a decisive issue.  I always appreciate your thoughts.

David in Qatar 

Bill Clinton's adminisrat

Report this comment
#20) On August 15, 2010 at 8:40 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

It was never discussed as a "war with Muslims" until the Neo-cons reframed the debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

It was and still is, in my opinion, a war with an organization that is basically Muslim based.  It would be foolish to ignore this connection and risk another catastrophic attack.  Yes it is theoretically wrong to "profile" but it would also be imprudent not to be a little realistic, especially when the stakes can be very high.

Report this comment
#21) On August 15, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Valyooo (99.47) wrote:

I live in NYC so I would like to add the following (didnt read all the responses sorry if I am redundant).

1) The property was bought RIGHT BEFORE 9/11.  Suspicious? Yes.

2) There is another mosque TWO BLOCKS AWAY. What is the need for this one?

3) If there is going to be public outrage why even do it?

4) I forget the exact thing, but they got like $400 mil of funding for a $2 mil dollar building.  What?

Griffin knows a lot more than me but hes in AZ.

Report this comment
#22) On August 15, 2010 at 10:37 PM, guiron (27.05) wrote:

It was and still is, in my opinion, a war with an organization that is basically Muslim based.  It would be foolish to ignore this connection and risk another catastrophic attack.  Yes it is theoretically wrong to "profile" but it would also be imprudent not to be a little realistic, especially when the stakes can be very high.

There are over 1.2 billion Muslims. Come on.

All I hear about from conservatives is how Muslims haven't reached out to the rest of the US after 9/11. This is an attempt to do so, and it was welcomed by the community - the location is quite a ways from Ground Zero, btw. Now, that's not good enough. Reaching out must apparently be done somewhere else.

But there are other places which have prevented mosques from being built out of prejudice: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-08-08-mosque-opposition_N.htm - So, they can't have a mosque at Ground Zero, because of the location, but apparently Nashville isn't good enough, either.

Constititional rights are not up to vote or popular appeal. Majorities used to approve segregation and tried to prevent voting rights for minorities and women. If we had waited for popular sentiment, it never would have happened.

There is no right not to be offended, sorry.

Report this comment
#23) On August 15, 2010 at 10:40 PM, guiron (27.05) wrote:

If there is going to be public outrage why even do it?

There is going to be public outrage no matter where they put the community center. Taking away people's rights in an effort to appease the ignorant and prejudiced is not how we should do things in the US. Or do you care at all about the Constitution?

Report this comment
#24) On August 15, 2010 at 10:42 PM, guiron (27.05) wrote:

There is another mosque TWO BLOCKS AWAY. What is the need for this one?

You could say the same thing about churches. So what?

Report this comment
#25) On August 15, 2010 at 10:46 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

VRL,

1) No. I see no reason for that to make your tail tingle. It seems that a better deal on lower Manhattan property would be had after an attack.

2) It is a community center.

3) Since the property has been owned with this purpose in mind for ten plus years I would wager a great deal of time and resources have already been dedicated to this idea. Would you be willing to let millions of dollars go by the way side because of  public grumblings? 

4) So the group has raised a ton more cash than needed. It is a nice problem to have. Jerry Lewis needs the fundraisers on his staff.

A fration of 1% of the world's population are the ones that go around causing all the problems. I doubt the Islamic variety of those jerks are going to swarm this community center and treat it as their new nest of evil. With an overactive NSA, FBI, CIA and DHS paying so much attention to places like this that are already built I imagine bad guys know it would be a huge mistake to make this a base of operations.  

 

On a side note to the group:  It is mistake to confuse a person's faith with their politics. 

Report this comment
#26) On August 15, 2010 at 10:48 PM, guiron (27.05) wrote:

The property was bought RIGHT BEFORE 9/11.  Suspicious? Yes

Have you noticed how many churches there are in Oklahoma City? Timothy McVeigh was Christian. So is the Ku Klux Klan. So are abortion clinic bombers. Suspicious? Yes. I think we should automatically be suspicious of any Christian, particularly those from the South, who are strongly supportive of the Constitution and suspicious of government.

Report this comment
#27) On August 15, 2010 at 10:58 PM, 100ozRound (29.42) wrote:

"Yes. I think we should automatically be suspicious of any Christian, particularly those from the South, who are strongly supportive of the Constitution and suspicious of government"

Cato is a terrorist???

:P

Report this comment
#28) On August 15, 2010 at 11:16 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

100ozRound,

Nah, I'm a passive resistance kind of guy. Dr. King and Gandhi had style. Look at what they accomplished as compared to the Irish Republican Army or Hesbollah. 

Cato

 

 

Report this comment
#29) On August 15, 2010 at 11:44 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

All I hear about from conservatives is how Muslims haven't reached out to the rest of the US after 9/11. This is an attempt to do so, and it was welcomed by the community - the location is quite a ways from Ground Zero, btw. Now, that's not good enough. Reaching out must apparently be done somewhere else.

Oh please, they were dancing in the streets in Teheran when those towers went down. Building a mosque has nothing to do with reaching out to the community.  Build a monument instead if that is their true intent.  Whether they ultimately build it or not is not my real concern.  What transpires inside it is.

Report this comment
#30) On August 16, 2010 at 12:38 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Dave I think that the government is horrible at building memorials. If they really wanted to build a memorial, they would have left the rubble where it was with a big sign that said "This happened!' 

If we really want to defeat fundamentalism, we need to embrace Muslims that aren't fundamentalists. 

It's hard to destroy popular thought with an army. It's easy to destroy it when the thinkers no longer find it popular. 

Report this comment
#31) On August 16, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Valyooo (99.47) wrote:

I do think we should be suspicious of the KKK, who disagrees on that?  And how is that similair to my point?

I am an athiest, Islam is probably my least favorite religion, but I am very open minded and not against Muslim people living amongst me...I grew up in a Muslim neighborhood.  But this is just clearly a controversial thing they are purposely doing.

Report this comment
#32) On August 16, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Melaschasm (53.74) wrote:

I find it a little hard to believe that the outrage against this mosque is a neocon thing.  Of those I personally know who are opposed to this mosque, they seem to be an equal mix of dems and repubs, including a number of people who opposed the war on terror from day one.  As far as I can tell, the reaction against this mosque is primarily an emotional one, not a philisophical objection.

 

Report this comment
#33) On August 16, 2010 at 9:19 AM, mtf00l (49.87) wrote:

Interesting...

Report this comment
#34) On August 16, 2010 at 9:42 AM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

If you watched the coverage on any of the mainstream channels, the comments against the community center are just ridiculous. New Yorkers spouting off comments like, "they want to bring sharia law and force us to follow it". Come on. 

Muslims make up 1/6th of the world population, if not more. They were also part of the victims in 9/11. They're also the target of terrorists everyday, and probably more Muslims are killed by terrorists than non-Muslims. There are extremists in every religion, and the problem are with extremists. Maybe the moderate and mainstream Muslims have not done enough to denounce the extremists, but this is no reason to punish the masses because of some bad apples.   

Report this comment
#35) On August 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM, leohaas (31.21) wrote:

Thanks for the history lesson. I knew most of this, but you have a talent for connecting the dots!

And yes, we agree.

Report this comment
#36) On August 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, drgroup (69.07) wrote:

I'll accept the mosque at ground zero when the muslims accept a synagogue in tehran...

Report this comment
#37) On August 16, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Pick1es (24.86) wrote:

i don' think Iran has the same freedom of religion that we do

Report this comment
#38) On August 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, drgroup (69.07) wrote:

fearandbullets...Now you are starting to get the picture....

Report this comment
#39) On August 16, 2010 at 10:47 AM, miteycasey (30.20) wrote:

There is a thing called taste and class.

In the PC, touchy feeley, World we live in today  putting a Islamic center where they want shows a lack of insentivity toward certain people.

I think this is what's chapping people more than the actually act of building a center on that location.

Report this comment
#40) On August 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

drgroup & fearandbullets (#36, #37)

Yes, so let's stoop down to their levels? This is absurd. The liberties afforded by America, by it's constitution, should not be something that is conditional on the actions or laws of another country. We should be better than that. Freedom of religion is freedom of religion, and as tactless as you may think the organizers may be, they have their right. I may disagree with you and your opinions, and I may disagree with your religion, but I will fight tooth and nail to protect your freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That's what it means to be American.

Did America have to wait for other countries to give women the right to vote? Did American have to wait for Africa to provide black's with their rights? No. This is no different. 

Report this comment
#41) On August 16, 2010 at 10:58 AM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

#36, for what it's worth... here's the list of all the synagogues in Tehran (there are many): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_synagogues_in_Iran

Report this comment
#42) On August 16, 2010 at 11:04 AM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

I think that Obama has been unfairly criticized.  This is about tolerance.  It wouldn't be on the very site but a few blocks away.  I support the building of the mosque.  But at the same time, it bothers me that Obama supports the building of the mosque (as I do), but has said nothing about the kids who were banned from saying the Pledge of Allegiance by the Lincoln Memorial. Or the banning of a Christmas song in schools. I support tolerance for people of all religions--you can't just pick and choose which religion deserves tolerance.

Report this comment
#43) On August 16, 2010 at 11:11 AM, drgroup (69.07) wrote:

SkepticalOx great point, touch'e...

Report this comment
#44) On August 16, 2010 at 11:11 AM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

#42... When I heard Bloomberg's speech on the matter, I was proud to be from a region of the world where we were diverse, tolerant, and protected our freedom of religion. I'm not sure about the Lincoln Memorial case, but when it comes to school, it gets a tad tricky. There is suppose to be a separation of church and state, and if it's a public school, it would be a government system. As materialistic and fluffy of a holiday as Christmas has become, I would not want my children in school to be indoctrinated in a religion that is not theirs using my own tax money (though I wouldn't go as far as France is banning religious symbols being worn in school).

And really. I don't think Obama supported the building of the mosque, but supported the freedom to build one if they wanted to. The GOP right now (Palin & Co.) are just playing on the ignorance and fears of Americans. It's sad. 

Report this comment
#45) On August 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, drgroup (69.07) wrote:

SkepticalOx...I would not want my children in school to be indoctrinated in a religion that is not theirs using my own tax money

You can't be serious with relating singing of a Christmas carol to indoctrination. With that line of logic, then you would like to ban Christmas period. You might see a Christmas scene somewhere and be indoctrinated...

Report this comment
#46) On August 16, 2010 at 11:54 AM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

I said it was tricky :P. Trust me, personally, I feel that Christmas has been made into probably the most materialistic, fluffy, and fun holiday. I sort of like my Christmas break, and even as I grew up (I'm agnostic, and my family aren't Christians), we celebrated Christmas (tree and gifts and everything).

To a devout religious non-Christian person, they might feel different. 

Report this comment
#47) On August 16, 2010 at 12:09 PM, drgroup (69.07) wrote:

Your are right, it is tricky. But as a Christian, I join you with the same feeling about the overly materialistic theme that has evolved. Christmas comes from the heart, not a box.

Stay well...

Report this comment
#48) On August 16, 2010 at 3:36 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Thanks to everyone for the great discussion.  I wish I could write posts like this all time.  There are a lot of good points raised here.  Although the government of Iran is disgusting, I think people would be surprised (or disbelieving) of the level of religious tolerance practiced there.  Finally, I think it's unfair to characterize the residents of Tehran as anti-American.  After all, we forget that America overthrew their democratically elected government and put in a puppet (Shah of Iran) who turned into a heavy handed and corrupt despot.  The Iranians remember.  They have good reason to distrust us.  And all they have to do is look at the mess our Ruling Class has made in Afghanistan and Iraq to know that the more things change the more they stay the same.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#49) On August 16, 2010 at 3:37 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

David,

 As usual, you make some excellent points.  This issue makes me angry, but upon further introspection, I realize that my anger isn't with the Muslims wanting to build a Mosque, but with the government for failing to build ANYTHING in nearly 10 years to commemorate the site.  I'd guess that most people feel the same, even if they don't quite realize it.

They *should* build the Mosque right on top of the ashes.  As a monument to government incompetence.  It'd be a far more fitting and appropriate memorial than some Chinese-owned "freedom tower"

Report this comment
#50) On August 16, 2010 at 5:51 PM, truthisntstupid (93.47) wrote:

I've seen newsclips of planned KKK marches where large groups of people - WHITE people - showed up and started throwing rocks at the KKK members.

We seem to be missing  newsclips of PO'd muslims doing that to muslim extremists..why??

 

Report this comment
#51) On August 16, 2010 at 6:14 PM, truthisntstupid (93.47) wrote:

Where is their outrage?  Does it exist?  Too dangerous to take a real impassioned stance?  The KKK is dangerous.  But good people were sickened by the evil the KKK has done in this world to the point they were unable to put up with it in their community. 

They felt a need to do something.

Where is the passionate muslim outrage at those who are perpetrating murderous acts in the name of their religion?

Is there any?  We don't seem to ever hear anything about it. 

Convince me.

Don't just tell me "they aren't all like that."

Prove it.

Report this comment
#52) On August 16, 2010 at 6:22 PM, truthisntstupid (93.47) wrote:

And please don't think I don't want to believe you. 

I do.

Report this comment
#53) On August 16, 2010 at 11:56 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

truthisntstupid,

If that's the standard you wish to use to judge every culture's response to criminal behavior, there is nothing I'm going to say that will change your opinion of Muslims.  I could easily point out that few white people protest the overwhelming proportion of destruction that the drug war puts on the black community.  It still wouldn't prove anything.   But you can't pick a standard so arbitrarily and then demand that 1.2 billion people follow your idea of how to deal with the problem or else.  That's just silly.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#54) On August 17, 2010 at 2:21 AM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

 whereaminow: "Finally, I think it's unfair to characterize the residents of Tehran as anti-American."

I don't think it unfair.  Afterall they were cheering when the towers went down (archive CNN).  They were cheering when Bin Ladin tried to kill me ( I was there 9/11). They were cheering when people close to me died. 

And while our Government many many decades ago might have supported the Shah of Iran, it was Jimmy Carter who stood idly by and let him get replaced by Khomeini, who was one peach of a guy.  A person who could have had our hostages released by one decree, yet refused to do so.  A person who by personal decree demanded the death of an author because he didn't like that author's writings.

And now we need to worry if that country develops a nuclear bomb because that country has a clear lunatic in power who wouldn't hesitate to bomb Israel if he could and who, I have NO DOUBT, would supply any Muslim terrorist cell with a dirty bomb to be used, yes, probably in NYC.

So forgive me if I don't turn my head away from potential threats.  I prefer to remain a pragmatist.  Better safe than sorry.

Report this comment
#55) On August 17, 2010 at 5:06 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

awallejr,

Ok, I got it. In your view, the punishment for cheering is death and enless subjugation that bankrupts Amerca, makes 1000 times as many enemies, and has no end.

I think that's brilliant. I'm sure that's going to work out great.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#56) On August 17, 2010 at 5:21 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Look, my point is that the whole "they were cheering argument" is just silly and meaningless.  So what?  Who was cheering?  What are their names?  Should everyone in that country be punished because a bunch of people you don't even know were cheering?  To what extent should they be punished?  What about people that are not in that country but have the same religion?  How much should we punish them?  How do we decide if they are sympathizers?  Should we require that every Muslim on the planet make a sworn statement pledging that they disagree with the cheering people?

How about this..... just let it go.  It's a big crazy world and there are people in America who aren't Muslim stealing from Americans every day.  I think that should rank higher on our priority list.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#57) On August 17, 2010 at 6:13 AM, saunafool (98.79) wrote:

Truthisntstupid, 

I've seen newsclips of planned KKK marches where large groups of people - WHITE people - showed up and started throwing rocks at the KKK members.

We seem to be missing  newsclips of PO'd muslims doing that to muslim extremists..why??

When the Taliban or Al Qaeda organize their next march in the U.S., let us know. 

Report this comment
#58) On August 17, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Gemini846 (46.06) wrote:

On a side note to the group:  It is mistake to confuse a person's faith with their politics.

There is a problem with this statement. In some countries Muslims are rather secular (Turkey for instance) while in others they are more devout. There is no seperation between government, culture and religion in Islam. They are one in the same. While I understand not wanting to isolate a people goup when we claim freedom of religion. We don't condone religions that promote human sacrifice. We don't condone religions that involve pedophelia or beastiality. We do tolerate religions that seek to subvert the government, however we draw the line at acting on these things. (building bombs, bombing et). Strangely enough we allow the training of terrorists on our own soil under the freedom of speech and religion provided by The Constitution. They aren't criminals until they blow something up. Well frankly by that time they are already blown up. There is nothing left to prosecute but the idea, and the idea is protected.

Islamic governments have declared Jihaad against the west. You will win no hearts and minds, but you can understand why some people would view all Islamic buildings as military targets.  The Taliban killed a whole host of aid workers in Afganistan claiming they were there to proselyte the Afgans. Many people would see no difference in doing the same to them.

Since Islam is so rooted in government and culture, the only way to actually change these people's intentions is to re-educate or kill them. This involves replacing the minds, memories and feelings of an entire generation. This of course undermines Islam at its core forcing a country to be more secular. This is exactly what's going on in Iraq. Those who now have more freedoms love us, but those who have lost power hate us even more.

Why is it that we hypocritically do this on foreign soil, but not in our own country? Why do people have freedom to subvert us here, but in Iraq we would arrest/kill them. In Afganistan or Pakistan we would send drones to kill them.

When you look at the effort and the whole picture you start to wonder why on earth we're even over there spending our blood and resources. The oil war conspiracy theories start to look pretty good in that light don't they?

Report this comment
#59) On August 17, 2010 at 12:04 PM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

#58. I don't understand the connection between your post and this issue with the community center (if you were trying to make one)? What you're doing by linking the entire religion to terrorism or bomb-building is the equivalent of linking the entire Christian world to the bomb-makers of the IRA (Ireland) or the murderers of abortion doctors in the south. (This NYTimes Op-Ed puts it more elegantly than me). The organizer of this community center is progressive and moderate.

It seems as if you're trying to connect opening a community center with training terrorists? This is just downright absurd.

And many of these authoritarian regimes you speak of you have to realize were put into power, or are still in power, because of meddling by the West. I'm not excusing the people of the Middle East for the situation they are in, but the West didn't do much to help their own cause.

Report this comment
#60) On August 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

whereaminow

Sidenote (since the Fool doesn't seem to have private messaging): it would be great if you could provide us with some insight into your experiences with working in the Middle East. I may be planning to go to the region in the near-future, and it would be really nice to get a feel of what it may be like. There's a lack of good information on the experiences of ex-pats working and living in the GCC.  

Report this comment
#61) On August 17, 2010 at 12:27 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

#58 - You are correct. I should have said: It is a fool that jumps to the conclusion that a person's faith dictates their politics. I am glad I could clear that up. :)

Report this comment
#62) On August 17, 2010 at 12:41 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

 whereaminow  You are the one that said this: "Finally, I think it's unfair to characterize the residents of Tehran as anti-American."

I am a person who believes that action speaks louder than words.  If you don't think a people cheering while watching on TV  towers crashing killing thousands of innocent Americans and then dancing in the streets isn't an indication of their attitude towards us then you are naive. 

And while that doesn't mean those cheering people would necessarily put a gun to my head, it certainly indicates they are not a people I want to put any trust in.  Bin Laden is getting financing from somewhere and it isn't from the Latvians.  Sadly it is probably from us in the end because of our Middle East oil purchasing.

I'm just curious if you even have any concerns about Iran developing nuclear weapon capabilities.

 

Report this comment
#63) On August 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, truthisntstupid (93.47) wrote:

"They aren't criminals until they blow something up.  Well frankly by that time they are already blown up.  There is nothing to prosecute but the idea, and the idea is protected."

That's the problem.  We can continue to take the high road and "not lower ourselves to their level"  clear till we're all dead.  Anyone who saw the huge masses of people cheering in the streets at the WTC towers falling killing thousands of people and still argues that isn't representative of the attitude of the overwhelming majority of the people in that country is living in a separate reality.

And you are still mistakenly assuming by the sound of my words that I don't want to believe any different than I do.  I know my words sound prejudiced and hateful.  I am not a hateful person.  I'm just another person who has seen nothing besides words and token statements by the muslim community condemning these terrorist acts.  Never any action - just words and words are cheap.  So here is your chance.  Educate me.  Don't assume I really want to continue feeling the way I do.  Maybe I would really rather have something that counters the newscasts and images I'm bombarded with every day.  But a simple statement telling me I'm wrong and they aren't all like that is woefully inadequate. 

 

Report this comment
#64) On August 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

My question is why you are even bringing Tehran into this? Even if you were to label an entire country as anti-American, they are mainly Persians and Shia, which is only a small subsect of the 1.2 billion Muslim's out there, who include Arabs, Africans, Indonesians, etc. etc...

Heck, do Tea Party & NRA members of a rust-belt state describe you? Or what about blue-blood liberals in Massachusetts? Heck, I'm willing to say that those two different subsects of Americans have more in common than two different groups that happen to also be Muslim. 

 

Report this comment
#65) On August 17, 2010 at 2:32 PM, SkepticalOx (99.53) wrote:

truthisntstupid

btw... Rauf, the main organizer, is a progressive and moderate voice in Islam. He's been a voice against extremism, and he's been trying to build bridges between the West and Islam. 

From Wiki:

British author Karen Armstrong supported him in the Introduction to Abdul Rauf's book:

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ... is a bridge figure because he has deep roots in both worlds. He was educated in Egypt, England, Malaysia and the United States, and his mosque in New York City is only a few blocks away from the World Trade Center. After September 11, people often asked me, "Where are the moderate Muslims? why are they not speaking out?" In Imam Rauf, we have a Muslim who can speak to Western people in a way they can understand."[6]

Fareed Zakaria praised Feisal for speaking of "the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions," for emphasizing the commonalities among all faiths, for advocating equal rights for women and opposing laws that in any way punish non-Muslims.[8] 

They are there. The mainstream news you watch just so happens not to show them. So yeah... if you want a way to shoot down any attempts by moderate Muslims to fight for the cause against extremism, have knee-jerk ignorant reactions to something like this mosque. 

And regarding Tehran, you give no credit to the green movement in Iran? 

Report this comment
#66) On August 17, 2010 at 2:45 PM, truthisntstupid (93.47) wrote:

I work a lot and haven't really watched a lot of TV in a while. I'm not familiar with the "green movement" in Iran.  Would that help me in my search for truth?  Tell me where to look and I will. 

Report this comment
#67) On August 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM, truthisntstupid (93.47) wrote:

Saunafool

The fact that perhaps some expression of anger by moderate muslims would take place if the taliban or al qeada were to try to march in the US is irrelevant.  Why doesn't it happen over there?

Report this comment
#68) On August 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

awallejr,

The reason I said it's a mistake to to characterize Iranians as anti-American is because you don't understand that most Muslims hate the American government, but they don't hate the American people.

Iran's a big countrry.  Can you put on a number on the amount of peope you saw cheering?  10,000?  1,000,000?  It would still be a fraction of the country.

Finally, you can't really know what's going on there anyway.  In Pakistan, for example, the government pays people a daily wage just to protest.  They bus them in from the countryside and then send em back after the day is over. It's a political show.

In other words, what you see on TV needs some context.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#69) On August 17, 2010 at 4:22 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Gemini,

Since Islam is so rooted in government and culture, the only way to actually change these people's intentions is to re-educate or kill them. This involves replacing the minds, memories and feelings of an entire generation. This of course undermines Islam at its core forcing a country to be more secular. This is exactly what's going on in Iraq. Those who now have more freedoms love us, but those who have lost power hate us even more. 

Have you ever been to Iraq?  Got any friends there?   I can't tell if you're being serious or this is clever satire.  This is so far away from reality I openly wonder.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#70) On August 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

the only way to actually change these people's intentions is to re-educate or kill them.

I just read that again, and I shake my head.  Those are the words of a psychopath.  I'm not saying you are one, but that's what a psychopath would write. You would have pleased Stalin.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#71) On August 17, 2010 at 5:28 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

whereaminow 

I am not trying to make any scientific argument.  Certainly I haven't polled every single Iranian as to what their views are.  Nor have you.  I know what I saw.  I know what I hear from their lunatic president.  I know that he was elected and re-elected (though the last election had issues).  I know that they are potentially working on nuclear weapons.

I've stated in the begining that it is distasteful to lump all Muslims together.  But there is no question where the terrorism is coming from. Pakistan, Indonesia, Middle East.  And it is there that I want the people responsible for my Country's national security to be scrutinizing.  Not wasting time and resources on say Latvia.

So while I said I don't have strong feelings for or against the building of the mosque in question, despite my 9/11 experiences, I do have strong feelngs in making sure that the activity in it is only about worship.  Because if in a few years some how money was laundered in it and terrorists harbored in it and weapons accumulated in it (which you actually said you think is ok) and then all this leads to another horrific event, hearing you say "oops" will mean nothing.

Report this comment
#72) On August 18, 2010 at 12:50 AM, ajm101 (32.88) wrote:

Thanks for being willing to stand up to the stupid, racist attitudes that run so against every principle the US was founded on.  And Republicans wonder why minorities in general vote Democratic, when there isn't a minority group they wouldn't happily throw under the bus in the pursuit of power.

Report this comment
#73) On August 18, 2010 at 1:43 AM, MyunderratedLife (91.20) wrote:

the only way to actually change these people's intentions is to re-educate or kill them.

I just read that again, and I shake my head.  Those are the words of a psychopath.  I'm not saying you are one, but that's what a psychopath would write. You would have pleased Stalin.

Stalin would have added that bullets were cheaper than books. 

Report this comment
#74) On August 18, 2010 at 3:46 AM, fransgeraedts (99.91) wrote:

Dear David,

good post, very interesting debate.

A few points.

(1) It is not remarkable at all (you are a true defender of the liberties!)-but it doesnt happen very often -until now. We are in agreement. Several others, that, like me, oppose you regularly on economic issues here on caps also find themselves agreeing with you on this. I think that is important.  I think it shows a real common ground. I sincerely believe that we here in Caps should start an inquiry into "an new consensus for a new economic policy". The common ground we found here is, i think, its true starting point.

(2)We agree in this case i wager that the freedom of religion is a fundamental liberty, protected by the constitution of the US and the charter of human rights, and ultimately a question of justice. We agree i wager that that freedom of religion makes no difference between religions and thus that the Islam is as much protected by it as Protestantism, of Catholicism, or any other religion. We agree that that means that there is no reason at all not to allow the mosque near ground zero to be build. We agree on the bigotry of  the protests and the politics that exploit them.

(3) We agree also i wager that the freedom of religion is an instance of an even more fundamental liberty, the freedom of conscience. A freedom that also protects the agnostics, atheists and non-believers and puts them on an equal footing with those who have a religious belief.

(4) The common ground that we discover here is i think the fundamental role of the individual pursuits of freedom, wealth and happiness and of the liberties that protect those pursuits for the succes and justice of a modern society. Would you agree?

fransgeraedts

Report this comment
#75) On August 18, 2010 at 6:22 AM, fransgeraedts (99.91) wrote:

A quick note about Iran.

I believe the developments in Iran are the most important in the Islamic civilisation.

Iran is the only full blown theocracy within the islamic civilization. It became a theocracy in a real revolution. The vast majority of the Iranian people rebelled against the authoritarian and corrupt regime of the sjah. While there were (as always) several different factions within the revolutionary movement the theocratic faction had the largest support across society -and thus won.

With that victory of the forces around Khomeini a very old and powerfull dream became reality. The dream of a truely religious, that is a truely Islamic state. A dream that relates back to the glory days of the early Islam when its amazing expansion began and to those of the Islamic golden age when its reach linked Spain to India under one ruler. (Because the muslims in Iran are sjia not sunni that dream was even more potent. The sjia are the losers of the early power struggle within Islam. The perpetual underdog not only finally comes to power but shows the whole Islamic world the "right" way.)

Iran (formerly known as persia) is a very old civilization. Older then the Islam. Why is that important? (1) It has always been relatively rich (2) It was always very literate and thus education is seen as very important.(3) It was and is not arab, but an autonomous regional power, sitting on top of the routes between Europe and China and Europe and India.

The revolution in Iran and the subsequent installation of a theocracy must be seen in the context of globalisation, that is the modernization of the islamic civilisation and of the iranian society. A theocracy is of course destined to fail in that context. Because it cannot accomodate the individual pursuit of freedom, wealth and happiness it quickly finds itself opposing an ever growing part of its own people. Out of necessity that brings about a development of the regime in a totalitarian direction.

This has become a very opressive regime indeed. It combines the archaic and patriarchal and therefore cruel and unjust Sharia system of punishment, with a modern conscience police not unlike for example that in Cuba or the DDR and a secret police in the same totalitarian mould. The regime itself has become very complex combining authoritarian, populist and totalitarian elements under a theocracy that has the final say. Its foreign policy is dangerous. It supports violent movements like Hezbollah and Hamas and factions within the Taliban. It tries to develop a nuclear bom. It is virulently anti-Israel and anti-US.

However  -and this is a very big and very important however- the theocratic regime has lost most of its support in the population.In a sense it has begun to lose support from the moment it came to power. But in the last five years that process has accelerated. Iran's population is very young and (relatively speaking) very well educated. The educated young have lost faith in the regime almost completely. Women are emancipating themselves. Busines has discovered that thisa type of regime is much to expensive -in numerous way's. Generally speaking the regime has lost the cities. All this came to the boil in the last elections for president. The candidate that was endorsed by the theocracy lost. The results were then rigged on a massive scale. So far nothing new. But this time the citizens of Iran refused to accept this. They rebelled. Hundredthousands of them. They kept at it till the regime forced them of the streets with violence. This "green revolution" has however not disappeared. It just has gone underground. And the repression has eroded the support for the regime even further.

Iran now reminds me of Poland after the first appearance of Solidarnoc, the big resistance movement against the communist regime there. The name Lech Walensa ring a bell? It is not possible to predict how long the regime in Teheran will be able to hold on to power. But its days are numbered. In Poland it was ten years before the regime fell. It could go faster in Iran.

Now imagine that the Iranian people themselves bring this regime down. The significance of that would be enormous. The dream of an Islamic state would be devalued  -for everyone in the Islamic civilization. it has been shown in practice that it does not work! That can no longer be denied. Those inperpretations of the Islam that argue for a divorce between "church and state" would become much stronger. Of course a democratic Iran would also mean much less of a threat and a shift in the powerrealtions in the region towards the democratic forces elsewhere.

fransgeraedts

 

Report this comment
#76) On August 18, 2010 at 8:23 AM, saunafool (98.79) wrote:

truthisntstupid, 

The fact that perhaps some expression of anger by moderate muslims would take place if the taliban or al qeada were to try to march in the US is irrelevant.  Why doesn't it happen over there?

Because the places where the Taliban and Al Qaeda might be publicly visible (parts of Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan) are lawless mountain areas where the terror groups call the shots. Ordinary people have the choice of standing up to them--and facing all kinds of atrocities culminating in their deaths and likely the violation and death of some of their family members--or keeping their heads down.

In other places like Saudi Arabia or other Middle East countries, you will never see Al Qaeda in the streets. The government would arrest them in a heartbeat. It's all part of being a terrorist organization--you never show your face.

As for Muslims speaking out against the extremists, all you need to do is look.

It has often been claimed in the media that Muslims are "silent" and do not condemn terrorism. This page is intended to refute that claim. Muslims have not been silent. Not even close. See also How American Muslims Really Responded to September 11 for more information about the Muslim response to 9/11. And another listing is atStatements Against Terror 

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php 

That is just one example. There are plenty more if you really want to see them. 

Report this comment
#77) On August 18, 2010 at 8:39 AM, fireman9119cac (24.09) wrote:

Do we still believe 911 was committed by  some extremist Muslim fellow in  cave that we cant seem to find?

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

 Watch the middle of the documentary...Best I have ever seen

Click on the movie on the far bottom right.

 FM

Report this comment
#78) On August 18, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Gemini846 (46.06) wrote:

David.

I'm not promoting mass re-education or mass-murder, however from the complicated web of media that comes out of Iraq including media, returning soldiers and army wives I know, reformed (converted) terrorists I've heard speak, and of course the Rolling Stone article that Gen McCrystal was sacrificed over indicate that US forces in that part of the world are indeed doing exactly what I said.

You can call it what you want, but what exactly are we doing over there if it isn't "re-educating" the population? Unfortunately it takes generations for societies to get comfortable with new ideas. Most individuals who have been indoctrinated to one way of thinking do not readily change thier minds. Younger people with more formidable minds do adapt to new ideas quicker and are more likely to rebel from the established norm.

Anyone who seeks to subvert this "re-education" is labeled a terrorist and hunted down.

@SkepticalOx in #59. Based on the testimony of Terrorists and converted former terrorists I've heard way too many times "My dad was an Imam in a mosque. We came here as missionaries to America and to support and train fighters in the Jihad". So yes, at least some buildings are being used for these causes.

Regarding your post in #65, what is the name of his book? I read a source last night (which I can't really trust) stating that Rauf had verbally indicated a need for Shiaria Law in certain parts of New York (due to large Muslim groups living there).

@Saunafool in #76. Thanks for the links.

Report this comment
#79) On August 18, 2010 at 10:50 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

fransgeraedts,

In regards to what we agree on, this is news to you but not to me.  I spent 7 years arguing with conservatives about the folly of their war on terror.  Now I come to find out that the anti-war liberals that used to be my allies are silent.  That tells me that under Obama, all war is good - even indiscriminate drone bombings in Pakistan that far exceeed anything the evil warmonging predecessor did.  Amazing.  Just wait until sick psychopath Hillary Clinton gets the VP nod in 2012.  She's as hawkish as Cheney.

We don't disagree on economics.  You reject economics.  There is no disagreement as to whether the Law of Scarcity is an economic fact or not.  You chose to reject it as if society can molded out of clay by whims and decrees.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#80) On August 18, 2010 at 1:51 PM, fransgeraedts (99.91) wrote:

Dear David,

sigh.

Did i not begin my comment with: it is not remarkable that we agree? I fully expected you as a defender of the liberties to defend the freedom of religion and conscience. So we both are not surprised  ..which is good..grin.

Can i take your silence as an agreement that a common ground between you and me (and by proxy almost all on Caps?) indeed exists? With regard to the fundamental role of the individual pursuits of freedom, wealth and happiness and of the liberties that protect those pursuits for the succes and justice of a modern society?

And just for the record i do believe that scarcity is important for all economic considerations and I do not believe that society can be molded out of clay (?) by whims and decrees.

fransgeraedts

 

Report this comment
#81) On August 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

fransgeraedts,

Can i take your silence as an agreement that a common ground between you and me (and by proxy almost all on Caps?) indeed exists? With regard to the fundamental role of the individual pursuits of freedom, wealth and happiness and of the liberties that protect those pursuits for the succes and justice of a modern society? 

Good enough to make me happy.  

I'll leave the economics for another post.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#82) On August 19, 2010 at 12:34 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

A number of interesting points in respect to this pseudo-controversery have been raised at Lew Rockwell's blog.  Here is some food for thought:

"I cannot support the construction—given all the Americans they have killed—of any federal installation at ground 0" - Lew Rockwell

ROFL!!

Private Property and the Mosque by Bill Anderson
Re: Private Property by Bill Shafer

"Amidst all the talk of “ground 0″ as secularly holy, and not to be defiled by an Islamic educational center four blocks away, ever notice that with government in charge, it is still just a hole in the ground all these years later? Sell the hole to the highest bidders, and let them build some productive enterprises there. Reject Palin, Gingrich, Boehner, Foxman, and other merchants of hate. We don’t need a blowback memorial." - Lew Rockwell

Abot That Proposed Mosque at Ground Zero - Thomas DiLorenzo

"The imam of the “ground 0 mosque” is an asset of the FBI. Islam, American style. Don’t miss Will Grigg on the long history of this sort of thing." - Lew Rockwell

Persecution and Ground Zero by Michael Rozeff

"The reason why so many officials and their supporters focus on Ground Zero is to maintain psychological — and thus voting and working — support for the Empire, its soldiers, its taxes, its outposts, and its wars. It also builds and maintains support for the growing police state at home." - Michael Rozeff

All good points.

David in Qatar

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement