« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | A Confluence Of Effluence »

How the enemy sees the Ground Zero Mosque

ground-zero-mosque.jpg

Coming our way via this link sent by Steve Schippert in email who adds:

Not many seem to understand (or get the importance) of how the enemy sees the mosque.

It's not just about freedom of religion or property rights.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40012.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How the enemy sees the Ground Zero Mosque:

» Weekend Pundit linked with Thoughts On A Sunday

Comments (84)

But it is about property ri... (Below threshold)
galoob:

But it is about property rights and freedom of religion.

It's amazing how the right has adopted the "no exercise of rights that hurt my feelings" kernel of leftist Political Correctness, campus speech codes and censorship in this "debate."

It's their property. Just like the porn shop down the road, you don't get to control everyone. Get over it.

galoob, those who are oppos... (Below threshold)
Eric:

galoob, those who are opposed to the Mosque also have a right to freely express their opinion that it shouldn't be there.

Who are you to tell us that we can't?

Just as we keep liquor stor... (Below threshold)
epador:

Just as we keep liquor stores and strip joints away from schools, we can keep enemy monuments out of our country. It is OUR country and we don't have to let foreign interests do whatever the Hell they want to do here.

Why THIS place??? They can... (Below threshold)
mag:

Why THIS place??? They can built it anywhere, but why here? It may be legal etc, but it certainly is insentative and inappropriate.

You really have to be a big time dummy NOT to understand what the movatives of these skunks are. I hate this religion more than ever and even more the people who make excuses for them. AND I AM NOT PREJUDICE...I AM JUDGING ON PRETTY GOOD DAMN EVIDENCE.

We have a constitutional ob... (Below threshold)
NJ Mike:

We have a constitutional obligation to allow foreign enemies engaged in a war against us to erect symbols of their victory on our battlefields?
Huh, I must have missed that one.....
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Religious buildings in this... (Below threshold)
Rich Fader:

Religious buildings in this country, just like any other buildings, are subject to civil regulation all the time, for lesser reasons than this. Please tell me you knew. Fred Phelps technically has every right to buy a row house in the West Village, where you can see the Stonewall Bar out the front door, and try to turn it into a branch church of Westboro Baptist. And if you think Mike Bloomberg and the city government would be equally indulgent of Phelps' property rights in that case, you're high.

Typical leftist bullshit sa... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Typical leftist bullshit saying we who oppose the mosque site do so on freedom of religion grounds. We are wanting the builders to show some respect and compassion.

I say let's encourage the Imam to build the mosque to demonstrate once and for all that Islam is not a compassionate or caring faith. All we have to do is tell our grandchildren the story. To me, this is all it is about. A faith with no compassion or respect for God's creation. ww

Galoob, like all "progressi... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Galoob, like all "progressives" today, cannot understand the distinction between a right and a responsibility.

Morality is not relative.

All roads lead to different destinations.

Islam may talk about 'peace', may mean 'submission' - to God, but until it learns to be part of the world instead of demanding control over it,

Islam = Chutzpah.

Meanwhile, Islam-dominated ... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Meanwhile, Islam-dominated countries not only won't allow the constggruction of new churches and synagogues, but also even confiscate Bibles at points of entry.

They also riot over alleged damage to a copy of the Koran, unless it was in a mosque destroyed by an Islamic act of terrorism.

I suggest a moratorium on t... (Below threshold)

I suggest a moratorium on the building of any more mosques in the U.S. until such time as a synagaue or Christiam church is built in Mecca. Read you history folks. Mosques are a symbol of conquest.

I first thought that the ca... (Below threshold)
galoob:

I first thought that the cartoon depicted was put out by some Muslim organization, as "the enemy's" vision.

I just noticed that the cartoon was signed by a "Shlomo Cohen." A Google search of the name reveals that he is an Israeli cartoonist.

Of course, it is in the "foreign interests" of the Israeli Likud government to propagandize against Arabs and Muslims in the USA, so this must be taken in that context. After all, Netanyahu was candid enough to say that he felt that the 9/11 attacks were good for Israel:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044

I put America and its Bill of Rights and interest first.

"I put America and its Bill... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

"I put America and its Bill of Rights and interest first"

Except for those who disagree with you.

I like to sniff Dane's fart... (Below threshold)
galoob:

I like to sniff Dane's farts.

Re "It's their property. Ju... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Re "It's their property. Just like the porn shop down the road, you don't get to control everyone. Get over it."

Many places don't allow porn shops. Zoning laws often keep them from being built near schools and churches. The zoning committee or others could prevent it. Why do you think nothing has been built at ground zero yet?

I like to sniff galoob's fa... (Below threshold)
Dane:

I like to sniff galoob's farts.

Meanwhile, Islam-dominat... (Below threshold)
DSkinner:

Meanwhile, Islam-dominated countries not only won't allow the constggruction of new churches and synagogues, but also even confiscate Bibles at points of entry.

I wonder how they handle Kindles and other e-book devices.

Didn't Muslims also build a... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Didn't Muslims also build a monument at that site in Pennsylvania where a plane went down on 9/ll? How odd. Now why would Muslims do that? Gotta wonder, don't you, goober @ 9:13?

Didn't Muslims also DEMAND ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Didn't Muslims also DEMAND a prayer room in the Pentagon, coincidentally only weeks after a plane flew into the Pentagon on 9/11? How odd. Now why would Muslims wait until then to make that demand? Gotta wonder, don't you, goober @ 9:13?

In that instance, the Pentagon compromised, deciding to make an all-faiths chapel available to Muslims, too. Pretty cool, eh goober?

Dane, Dane, Dane, TRY to be... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Dane, Dane, Dane, TRY to be rational for a change.

It isn't about freedom of religion or freedom of speech or property rights or even sticking thumbs in the eyes of Muslims. (Much about any of your other loony contrivances either.) And BTW, it isn't a left wing or a right wing issue either.

It's simply about showing sensitivity to the feelings of friends and relatives of those people who were murdered by Muslims on 9/11.

Are you really too dense and too shallow to grasp that? Or does it just give you a cheap, kinky thrill to be obstinate for the sake of being obstinate?

You and goober there lose your credibility when you're so obtuse.

Looks like the mosque fanta... (Below threshold)
914:

Looks like the mosque fantasizer's have a case of penis envy.

CorrectedDane, Dan... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Corrected

Dane, Dane, Dane, TRY to be rational for a change.

It isn't about freedom of religion or freedom of speech or property rights or even sticking thumbs in the eyes of Muslims. (Much less about any of your other loony contrivances either.) And BTW, it isn't a left wing or a right wing issue either.

It's simply about showing sensitivity to the feelings of friends and relatives of those people who were murdered by Muslims on 9/11.

Are you really too dense and too shallow to grasp that? Or does it just give you a cheap, kinky thrill to be obstinate for the sake of being obstinate?

You and goober there lose your credibility whenever you're so obtuse.

Dane had cred... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Dane had credibility once?

Wait a minute , the Imam sa... (Below threshold)
doubled:

Wait a minute , the Imam says this is a Community center, NOT a mosque. So why do the likes of galoob keep trying to make this a religious issue. They should have the same hard time that any poor sap gets from the government when you want to build , say a Wal-Mart within the union stranglehold of say inner-city Chicago.

Dane is alright. He's just ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Dane is alright. He's just a wild 'n crazy, mixed up kid.

"I put America and its Bill... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

"I put America and its Bill of Rights and interest first." galoob

I guess that means galoob will be signing the on-line petition requesting Obama lift his stop order on S. Korea re-importing those used M-1s into the United States. Good to know there is another signature. Thanks galoob.

From Dane's similar comments it looks like he can be counted on to man-up too. Good on ya' Dane.

//sarcasm off//

"Even the ADL is calling yo... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

"Even the ADL is calling you guys un-American wackos now." - Dane


Whoa, that could cause me to rethink my positions on a lot of issues.

galoob will be signing t... (Below threshold)
galoob:

galoob will be signing the on-line petition requesting Obama lift his stop order on S. Korea re-importing those used M-1s into the United States. Good to know there is another signature.

Point me where to sign. Absolutely, I am a atrong 2nd Amendment defender. We need guns to protect our religious, speech, property and political rights from the government. Although I recommend M-4s over M-1s.

I know that if many fascists of the type that post here had their way, I would be in a camp as an "anti-American dissident," and the state would had an official fundamentalist Christian religion, enforcing Old Testament (same as sharia) laws.

"But it is about property r... (Below threshold)

"But it is about property rights and freedom of religion.

It's amazing how the right has adopted the "no exercise of rights that hurt my feelings"...

It's their property. Just like the porn shop down the road, you don't get to control everyone..."
- galoob

It's also about Freedom of Speech. Just because something CAN happen doesn't mean it SHOULD happen or everyone should quietly let it happen. Opponents of the Mosque have just as much of a right to voice their opposition as the proponents have to voice their support and build it.

Actually galoob, you would ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Actually galoob, you would be in an institution getting much needed help with your hate and rage.

JT, the 'fart smelling' are neither funny or relevent. Where is Thor? ww

I hear that the World Churc... (Below threshold)
Murgatroyd:

I hear that the World Church of the Creator wants to put up a thirty-foot Fylfot of Brotherhood and Tolerance next door to the Holocaust Memorial.

Willie, I was just exercisi... (Below threshold)

Willie, I was just exercising my rights as the designated agent of the property owner. And I knew that galoob and Dane would support my doing so.

J.

Ah, nothing like calm, reas... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Ah, nothing like calm, reasoned, rational debate.

Rick,

How does "the enemy" have ANYTHING to do with this project? Are you arguing that these people are connected to terrorists and Al Qaeda? Really?

If not, cut the crap and at least just disagree without making meaningless assertions.

Epador wrote:

"Just as we keep liquor stores and strip joints away from schools, we can keep enemy monuments out of our country."

Please explain how the backers of this project are connected to Al Qaeda or other terrorists (whether in Iraq, Pakistan, of Afghanistan). I'd like to hear this. If you have some evidence, the world needs to know. Keep in mind the remedial fact that not all 1.6 billion Muslims are terrorists.

Mag,

"You really have to be a big time dummy NOT to understand what the movatives of these skunks are."

Spell it out, Mag. Tell us how it is. What deep, dark secrets do you know about the REAL motivations here? No need to be cryptic.

Side note: what do you think about the professed motivations of the people behind this project? You know, the ones who are saying they are doing this to promote a different image of Islam?

NJ Mike:

"We have a constitutional obligation to allow foreign enemies engaged in a war against us to erect symbols of their victory on our battlefields?"

What on earth are you talking about? Feel free to make a connection between these people and AQ, if you can (you're the third one to allude to this). If you have some information, by all means tell the world. Otherwise, leave the rants and wild conjectures aside. Yes, I can understand why you disagree, and I respect your right to voice your disagreement. But there is no need to start making flagrant claims that have no basis in reality.

Jim2 writes,

"Meanwhile, Islam-dominated countries not only won't allow the constggruction of new churches and synagogues, but also even confiscate Bibles at points of entry."

What? And how does this have anything to do with the subject at hand? You see, we are talking about Muslims in the United States, and last time I checked they have the same rights as anyone else here. Bringing up non sequiturs like this just gets everything off track. You're confusing all sorts of issues here. If you disagree, that's your right. I can respect that. But try to at least stay somewhat on topic.

eblum writes,

"Read you history folks. Mosques are a symbol of conquest."

Hmmm. You should read YOUR history. Mosques, churches, and other political/religious structures have been placed upon earlier sites of spiritual and religious importance as a matter of course for thousands of years. For an example, check out the site of Mitla in Oaxaca, where the Spanish put a church on top of an older center of power. Happens all the time, and it's definitely not limited to Islam. Nice try though.

---

SOME of the responses here are ridiculous. How long will it take for some of you to stop generalizing about every Muslim based upon the actions of some Muslims. Seriously, it's not all that complicated to realize that there are lots of Muslims out there, and not all of them are terrorists. In fact, it's blatantly simple to figure that out.


ryan-"How does "th... (Below threshold)
914:

ryan-

"How does "the enemy" have ANYTHING to do with this project? Are you arguing that these people are connected to terrorists and Al Qaeda? Really?"


I actually cannot discern between terrorists and Al Quaeda. Nice to know you do.

When it comes to nuclear destruction and the extinction of a whole US city or 3, I think it wise to err on the side of caution. Especially when a promoter of the mosque has tie's to islamist and refuses to show a money funding trail.

You can trust but not verify with you and yours but not with me and mine.

Nine hundred and fourteen,<... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Nine hundred and fourteen,

"I actually cannot discern between terrorists and Al Quaeda. Nice to know you do."

The word "terrorists" is a general term, while "Al Qaeda" refers to a particular terrorist organization. Does that help you?

Nice attempt at being clever though.

"When it comes to nuclear destruction and the extinction of a whole US city or 3, I think it wise to err on the side of caution."

There is a difference between being cautious and being flagrantly reactionary. Maybe you can figure that out at some point or another.

"Especially when a promoter of the mosque has tie's to islamist and refuses to show a money funding trail."

Who? The guy who also owns shares in NewsCorp?

"You can trust but not verify with you and yours but not with me and mine."

So 914, how are you going to go about verifying your worries here? Or was that just a little rhetorical statement?

If there is some evidence that you have that links these people to terrorists, let's hear it. If this is the case, then everyone should know. I mean, since you're all about verification and all.

I will say what our governm... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I will say what our government will not say but is actually happening. This is a religious war. Plain and simple. Goes back to Abraham and Sarah. The promised child and the bastard child birthed by a concubine. You cannot say or do anything to please the Islam followers. For those of faith in Judaism/Christianity, we are fighting over the same promise God made to Abraham. How can you negotiate that? If the "lions lay down with the lambs" that would be Jews and Muslims, then it could happen, but I do not see it in the forseeable future. ww

I take care of me and my ow... (Below threshold)
914:

I take care of me and my own. I dont have to verify anything. I live out in the middle of bumfuc nowhere..

Its people in the big metropolis areas that should be worried about mosque exspansions.

Galoob -"I know... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Galoob -

"I know that if many fascists of the type that post here had their way, I would be in a camp as an "anti-American dissident," and the state would had an official fundamentalist Christian religion, enforcing Old Testament (same as sharia) laws."

Only in your fevered dreams, bub. I've never seen anyone here calling for the internment of anti-American dissidents or the establishment of a theocracy based on either New OR Old Testament principles.

I HAVE seen numerous suggestions of 're-education camps' for folks who weren't thinking the right way coming from the low-level left. Perhaps you're letting your projection get a bit carried away, and you're accusing others of what you really want to do yourself...

Put the whip and jackboots away, Galoob. Much as you want it, it's not going to happen.

"How does "the enemy" ha... (Below threshold)
Dane:

"How does "the enemy" have ANYTHING to do with this project? Are you arguing that these people are connected to terrorists and Al Qaeda? Really?"

Rick doesn't argue. he makes up lies and then runs away like a child when you challenge his biases or expose his childish hate.

I can't wait until his federal government employers get an eyeful of how he spends his days posting lies and hate instead of working. He'll whimper like a little girl as he stand in the unemployment lines.

I don't suppose the familie... (Below threshold)
warchild:

I don't suppose the families of muslim Americans that died on 9-11 exactly appreciate the hate coming their way.

Anyone else notice the "imp... (Below threshold)
914:

Anyone else notice the "imp" echo effect? Everytime Dane spews some inane hatred a little imp appears to echo right after?

"Rick doesn't argue. he mak... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

"Rick doesn't argue. he makes up lies and then runs away like a child when you challenge his biases or expose his childish hate."

Actually, that sounds like Dane (aka Wizbang's Drama Queen).

Anyone else notice the "imp... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Anyone else notice the "imp" echo effect? Everytime Dane spews some inane hatred a little imp appears to echo right after?
-------
I notice everytime some rightwinger spews some hate you are there to echo. hadn't noticed anyhting with dane.

Yep, the enemy IS not only ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Yep, the enemy IS not only linked to the developers (who seem more like con men than true developers), they trumpet the idea of the mosque as a triumph over us, their enemy.

Unless you are too busy keeping you fingers in your ears and shouting la, la la la la, you might have noticed this.

Warchild -Just a l... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Warchild -

Just a little tip... disagreement with your positions doesn't equal hate. I realize that your education (and likely Dane's) has probably been such that you've been taught that any disagreement with liberal positions automatically equals frothing hatred - but in all honestly the only ones I see spewing hatred on this board are the folks on the left who can't defend their positions without accusing others of hatred. Or racism. Or of being racist haters, or being hating racists, or being hating racist haters who racially hate... or some other such stupidity.

The racism and hate cards are worn out. They're not a substitute for actual engagement on the issues.

For instance, I don't like Obama's policies because it seems clear to me he's going in the wrong direction. He's not uniting people, he's dividing them by race and political persuasion... and WANTS them divided. That's not exhibiting leadership, it's the tactic of someone who's massively insecure in his own abilities and wants opposition to be fractured so HE can rise above it.

(And frankly, he's doing a bad job of it.)

I don't like the people he's hired - I think they're giving him bad advice on what to do on the economy and just plain feeding him bullshit. We lose 500k jobs a month, gain 65k, and that's seen by his speechwriters as a win? Going in the right direction? Ever ask yourself WHERE we're supposedly going, if a net loss per month of 440k jobs is considered a GOOD thing?

First-rate people hire first-rate advisors. Obama's hiring third-rate, at best. You can tell a lot about someone by the people they've got working for him - and his folks have little to no real-world experience. There's a big difference between theoretical classroom models and actuality, between academic accomplishments and real-world effectiveness. This crew doesn't get that - and it shows.

Am I being a hateful racist hater who racially hates because I don't think Obama's teh bestest prez evar? Frankly, I'm disappointed with him all the way around - he was built up to be so much more. I was hoping for leadership - and there's little to none. I was hoping for economic knowledge - and it's lacking. I was hoping for geopolitical acumen, and he's bumbling and stumbling. This is not a good thing!

Your mileage, of course, may vary. But history will not be kind to him, at all. (And don't bother bringing Bush into this. I'm talking about Obama's choices, and Obama's policies, not anything Bush made Obama do or not do.)

Obama's responsible for what he's enacted and what he does. Nobody forced him to run for office - but he's not doing well at all, and I don't think he's having near as much fun as he figured he would - and neither are we.

Yep, the enemy IS not only ... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Yep, the enemy IS not only linked to the developers (who seem more like con men than true developers), they trumpet the idea of the mosque as a triumph over us, their enemy.

Unless you are too busy keeping you fingers in your ears and shouting la, la la la la, you might have noticed this.
----------------------------------
their is already a mosque 4 blocks away. Wanna go burn it down? Just think evil muslim Americans practicing their religion in the country of relgious freedom. Really upsetting.

Timothy Mcveigh considered himself a Christian. Should we stop any churches from popping up next ot the oklahoma city bombing site? Are all christians guilty because of McVeigh? Or is McVeigh just a radical nut? Is Osama bin laden a radical nut? are all Christians radical nuts because of mcveigh? Are all muslims radical nuts because of Bin laden?

warchild, warchild, warchil... (Below threshold)

warchild, warchild, warchild... you've been so grossly abused by those whom you trusted for your education.

McVeigh didn't blow up the Murrah Federal Building in the name of Jesus. In fact, he said he was an atheist. So your little metaphor falls apart.

You should have gone with the killing of an abortionist to go with your metaphor. Then I would have had to put more work into shredding it -- how no such incident involved the conspiring of dozens of people, how it wasn't openly celebrated around the world, how nearly all Americans on both sides of the issue condemned it, and so on.

You need to get a lawyer and sue your school for filling your head with such utter garbage.

J.

warchild, warchild... (Below threshold)
warchild:
warchild, warchild, warchild... you've been so grossly abused by those whom you trusted for your education.

McVeigh didn't blow up the Murrah Federal Building in the name of Jesus. In fact, he said he was an atheist. So your little metaphor falls apart.

You should have gone with the killing of an abortionist to go with your metaphor. Then I would have had to put more work into shredding it -- how no such incident involved the conspiring of dozens of people, how it wasn't openly celebrated around the world, how nearly all Americans on both sides of the issue condemned it, and so on.

You need to get a lawyer and sue your school for filling your head with such utter garbage.

Time magazine: Are you religious?

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time magazine: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.


Well done jay tea If you need a donation to get yourself A lawyer I'm not above helping the needy. Although the odds of you "shredding" an argument of mine are about the odds of you becoming a respected writer one day (don't worry your sycophants will come to the aid of your wounded ego.)

Now as far as the other nonsense you wrote it is all irrelevant plenty of muslims condemed the attack. Plenty offered sympathy to the U.S your logic in paiting 1 Billion people with a brush based on the actions of 13 is pretty silly. Before you display that kind of arrogence again, I recommed you actually do a bit of research and throw in some thinking on top of it.

Just a little tip... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Just a little tip... disagreement with your positions doesn't equal hate. I realize that your education (and likely Dane's) has probably been such that you've been taught that any disagreement with liberal positions automatically equals frothing hatred - but in all honestly the only ones I see spewing hatred on this board are the folks on the left who can't defend their positions without accusing others of hatred. Or racism. Or of being racist haters, or being hating racists, or being hating racist haters who racially hate... or some other such stupidity.

It's pretty hard to believe it's not hate. Don't tell me you don't want American Muslims to build their mosque because you have a deep and abiding respect for them. You blame Islam for the attack and not Al Quaeda, is that inaccurate?

btw, you know their were american muslims who were heros on that day right? One who died risking his life to help. Does his family not deserve to worship near 9-11. He paid the ultimate sacrifice. You didn't. It was non Americans who attacked us. And they are pervertd and twisted, but to blame the entire muslim world for it is ludicrious.

Warchild, you are a comment... (Below threshold)
epador:

Warchild, you are a comment child, a logic child and getting to be a real boor.

Just put on you eyeshades, put in your earplugs, you know where to put the cork.

warchild, if you look at wh... (Below threshold)

warchild, if you look at what people are actually saying here, and not just hearing what you want to, you'll see that you and your ideological comrades are saying the most hateful things.

Your core philosophy is based on absurdities and hypocrisies. "We hate haters! We have no tolerance for the intolerant!"

Note that you can't actually quote any "hate" in our articles -- you have to paraphrase it in ways none of us would actually speak. And in the process, you strip our words of their actual intended meaning and simplify them to the point of dishonest distortion.

In other words, you can't properly hate us for what we say, so you rewrite it into what you wished we'd said and then hate us for what you yourself say.

Not helpful. Not fair. Not honest.

And McVeigh -- he told a lot of people that "science is my religion." Further, he did not commit his attack in the name of God -- unlike, say, the vast majority of other terrorist events that are punctuated by the terrorist(s) shouting "Allahu Akbar!"

Grow up a little, warchild. Learn to deal with reality, not your projections and stereotypes and fantasies.

J.

"I will say what our govern... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"I will say what our government will not say but is actually happening. This is a religious war. Plain and simple. Goes back to Abraham and Sarah. The promised child and the bastard child birthed by a concubine."

Well Willie, I'd definitely agree that Al Qaeda and other Muslims terrorist organizations absolutely see this as a political-religious war.

But AQ and other Muslim terrorists do not represent the totality of Islam. What that means is that this is NOT a war with every Muslim, but instead with specific Muslim organizations that have terrorist agendas. It only makes things worse to start saying that this is some global war with *all* of Islam. Do you really think that every Muslim around the world is somehow supporting organizations like AQ?

AQ has killed all kinds of Muslims around the world. They repress people who do not toe the line. Brutally. This illustrates pretty clearly the fact that there are differing ideas and practices. Many people are caught in the middle, and simply assuming that they must be terrorists because the Taliban is trying to control them greatly oversimplifies what's happening. Not all Muslims think alike. Don't forge that. Oversimplifying the battle lines based upon generalizations doesn't help, IMO, at all.

914:"I take care o... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

914:

"I take care of me and my own. I dont have to verify anything. I live out in the middle of bumfuc nowhere..."

Hilarious. I'll keep that in mind whenever you make some stupid claim. You don't have to verify anything? So you just hold onto your beliefs without any sort of critical thinking?

At least you're willing to openly admit that.

I don't really care WHERE you live. The "I live out in the middle of nowhere" plea to ignorance doesn't really fly. If you're going to come on here and start making all sorts of claims about Muslims, I'd hope that you would at least read SOMETHING (outside of Fox news) to check your assertions.

Epador:"Yep, the e... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Epador:

"Yep, the enemy IS not only linked to the developers (who seem more like con men than true developers), they trumpet the idea of the mosque as a triumph over us, their enemy. "

Ok, so you have evidence that links AQ or some other terrorist organization to these people. Please share this important information and be specific instead of making general claims.

Second, who "trumpets" the idea of the mosque as a triumph over us? Please be specific.

"Just a little tip... disag... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Just a little tip... disagreement with your positions doesn't equal hate."

JLawson, I absolutely agree with you. This is an excellent point. I hope everyone reads your comment.

It's pretty hard to beli... (Below threshold)

It's pretty hard to believe it's not hate.

That is YOUR particular hatred coming forth. You can't acknowledge that the other side might not have evil motivations... thus, you automatically believe that if we oppose the mosque, it must be because we hate Muslims. You won't accept any other motivations or arguments.

Does that apply to Muslims who oppose the mosque? Those who claim that it is an insult and that the people behind it are not "moderates?" Are they filled with hate as well, Warchild?

Don't tell me you don't want American Muslims to build their mosque because you have a deep and abiding respect for them.

I can't speak for JL, but I'm an agnostic. Specific religious beliefs all seem a little silly to me, Islam included. Personally, though, I don't have a deep and abiding respect for Muslims, and the reason is their behavior. Their faith, far more than any other on the planet, seems to generate violent fanatics. That violence targets not only other faiths, but also women, homosexuals, nonbelievers, and even other members of their own faith.

Now, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent fanatics. Those fanatics, though, find very little opposition from the moderates, who are largely silent, either keeping their mouths shut or making excuses for the attacks. There are a few who do speak up in opposition... and they find no support from people like you.

Respect is earned. If Muslims want respect, they need to reform their faith, to cast out the fanatics among them, to stop being silent in the face of evil.

You blame Islam for the attack and not Al Quaeda, is that inaccurate?

You act as if they were separate. Al Qaeda is composed ENTIRELY of Muslims. Islam, as it stands right now, is a breeding ground for murderous terrorists. In truth, AQ is a symptom of a larger disease in the Muslim world, one that has never gotten past its violent roots as Christianity was forced (kicking and screaming) to do centuries ago.

You on the left invoke Timothy McVeigh frequently. His religious beliefs were all over the map, one moment professing to believe in God, the next professing to be agnostic. However, what is important is how he was received after his crime by Christians: they utterly rejected him.

In the Muslim world, on 9/11, mobs of people were cheering and passing out candy. They were filled with not horror and outrage, but jubilation.

Now, as to the mosque, there may very well be a Constitutional right to build it. Just because you have a right to do something does not mean you should. There are mosques in Manhattan, but they existed before 9/11 and are not being built on (not near, on) the site of the largest terrorist attack in US history. The people behind this have rejected every request for them to build it elsewhere.

This mosque is nothing more, and nothing less, than a deliberate insult. It is planting a flag on conquered ground, something that Islam has done throughout its history. At last report, groundbreaking ceremonies are planned for September 11th, 2011. WHY? Where is the sensitivity of the Muslims towards others? Where is their respect towards those who are insulted by their actions?

Answer the questions, Warchild, or admit you can't.

Jay Tea,I think yo... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Jay Tea,

I think you have some fair critical points to make about the arguments from liberals around here. When you tore people like Lee Ward apart for making ridiculous claims, I agreed with you 100 percent.

What I find amazing is how you can be so critical of folks like Dane and warchild (and sometimes rightfully so), while letting others (who happen to agree with you politically) slide for making remarks that approach Lee Ward-esque levels of nonsense. This happens pretty consistently.

[The Ground Zero mosque] "i... (Below threshold)

[The Ground Zero mosque] "is not a humble Islamic statement. A mosque such as this is actually a political structure that casts a shadow over a cemetery, over hallowed ground. 9/11 was the beginning of a kinetic war, it is not an opportunity for cultural exchange. It was the beginning of a conflict with those who want to destroy our way of life."

"I am in no way looking to infringe on First Amendment issues. I approach this as a Muslim that is dedicated to reform."

-Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy

"Many Muslims suspect that ... (Below threshold)

"Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the 'infidel.' We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating 'fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making,' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur'an."

-Raheel Raza, board member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, in a letter to Imam Rauf urging him to abandon the Ground Zero mosque

Not so Evil Otto,"... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Not so Evil Otto,

"You act as if they were separate. Al Qaeda is composed ENTIRELY of Muslims."

And thus begins the logical fallacy.

Yes, AQ is composed of Muslims. But this does not mean that it is reasonable or accurate to assume a link between ALL Muslims and the actions of Al Qaeda.

"Islam, as it stands right now, is a breeding ground for murderous terrorists."

Islam is a religious concept with 1.6 billion followers who do not act, think, or live in the same way. THAT is an accurate statement.

As for your assertion, it would be A LOT more accurate to say that certain organizations/networks like AQ, who use Islam as a propaganda and recruitment tool, and who base their operations in specific places (Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc), are breeding grounds of terrorism. It's important to look closer at the details, lest you fall into ridiculously generalized understandings of what it is that the US is actually dealing with.

"In truth, AQ is a symptom of a larger disease in the Muslim world, one that has never gotten past its violent roots as Christianity was forced (kicking and screaming) to do centuries ago."

Al Qaeda has particular historical and political roots, and it is a symptom of the problems that are rampant throughout the ME. This includes widespread poverty, corruption, repression, and continued violence. Autocratic regimes also play a significant role. Don't forget that the modern middle east has been shaped by a MULTITUDE of groups, which includes Muslims and plenty of non-Muslims.

To simply boil this all down to the supposed violent nature of Islam is to greatly oversimplify the histories and politics of the ME. All sorts of nations/groups have taken part in the violence and conflict in the ME. Go read about the histories of colonialism, and then the aftermath of World War I, and then tell me that this all boils down to the "nature" of Islam.

There's a LOT more to the story. But you just go ahead and keep repeating your Fox News nonsense.

What I find amazing is h... (Below threshold)

What I find amazing is how you can be so critical of folks like Dane and warchild (and sometimes rightfully so), while letting others (who happen to agree with you politically) slide for making remarks that approach Lee Ward-esque levels of nonsense. This happens pretty consistently.

Let us know when you're willing to do the same, Ryan. The next time Dane calls us "teabaggers" (for example) feel free to step up to the plate and tell him off.

"It's pretty hard to bel... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"It's pretty hard to believe it's not hate"

Warchild - if I go to test-drive a new car, and find it doesn't meet my needs or I don't like the styling or I don't like the way it handles, do I hate the car?

Should I buy it ANYWAY if there are other choices which do fit my needs better?

"I don't like this car, it doesn't fit my needs, it handles like an arthritic pig, it's ugly... but I'm going to buy it to prove I don't hate it!"

Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?

Re the mosque location - I would have a problem with someone selling snuff films at a Gettysburg booth. The Japanese would have a problem with an American victory monument at Hiroshima - and I would think it totally inappropriate. It is... difficult... to ignore the historic implications of how Muslims put a mosque at the site of their great victories - and 9/11 WAS a victory for the factions who really, really want to see the US under Islamic control. The community in that area has spoken, the majority of them DO NOT want the mosque on that site. Move it back a couple of blocks and likely it'll be accepted. Leave it where it is, and you're giving all the folks in NY who would otherwise support it and be tolerant the finger.

"He paid the ultimate sacrifice. You didn't."

I spent 23 years in the military. Does that count for anything? Dare I NOT have an opinon on a subject because someone else has a countering opinion?

Sometimes I think the folks on the left belive in 'tyranny of the minority'. To you, the desires (or needs) of ONE person or family, or small group - or even your own desires - for something override how everyone else feels about it. For instance, Obamacare. "There's 30 million people not covered by health care!" doesn't require a complete revamp of our health system costing trillions and having unimagined, unforeseen repercussions. There were ways to take care of that relatively inexpensively and relatively simply, down to a debit-type card setup that'd be loaded with $1000 per person covered in a family that could ONLY be used for health care expenses. Is it British-style health care? No, so that wasn't acceptable. (And frankly, from all reports Europens/British style health care ain't what it's made out to be either.)

But because of a relatively small group, every else's insurance gets shaken up, costs go up for all, TAXES go way the hell up, and there's STILL about 15 mil not covered for one reason or another.

So the 'right of someone to worship where family members died' is more important than the anger generated by the act, the intransigence and unwillingness of the people looking to build it to compromise in any way, and the percieved monumental value of this mosque to the radical Islamists who see this as a tremendous victory over the Great Satan.

You focus on the miniscule, and miss the big picture completely...

"Let us know when you're wi... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Let us know when you're willing to do the same, Ryan."

No problem, Otto.

Bullsh*t abounds on all sides of the political spectrum. It's good to keep that in mind.

Ryan A -Thank you.... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Ryan A -

Thank you. I'm just trying to look at all this arguing from a reasonable standpoint. Disagreement isn't hate, stating a contrary opinion isn't hate.

But all too often, accusations of hate or racism are thrown into the mix way too fast, simply because (I think) the person responding has run out of rational replies. (Or in the case of some, didn't have them in the first place and were running on gut feeling.)

I don't know what the answer is to try to get everyone to understand that hate doesn't equal disagreement and disagreement doesn't equal hate.

And at the end of the day -... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

And at the end of the day - we're STILL going to have to coexist with each other in this country. Tolerance isn't something that can be one-way - it's got to be reciprocal.

Please excuse the misspellings - it takes a while for the joints to unlock in the morning...

JLawson,As usual, ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

JLawson,

As usual, you make solid, well-reasoned points. Maybe some folks around here could learn a little from you.

"...the intransigence and unwillingness of the people looking to build it to compromise in any way, and the percieved monumental value of this mosque to the radical Islamists who see this as a tremendous victory over the Great Satan."

I agree with you that those who are behind this project should be more willing to listen, and more open to compromise and addressing the anger, fears, and concerns of people who are against this project.

However, I am not sure if I agree with you that radical Islamists would see a cultural center that purports to support pluralism, social justice, community empowerment, and "respect for the diversity of expression and ideas between all people" is something that Muslim extremists would see as a victory. That's not exactly the ideology that Al Qaeda and the Taliban goes around spouting. I mean, pluralism is pretty much the last thing that AQ is pushing for.

Do you really think that the rhetoric of the people behind the community center really supports the kind of crap spewed by terrorist groups like AQ?

There's a LOT more to th... (Below threshold)

There's a LOT more to the story. But you just go ahead and keep repeating your Fox News nonsense.

We're done here, cupcake. You're not willing to treat an opponent with any sort of respect or argue against what I actually said. You largely ignored my real points, cherry-picking a few and not commenting on the ones where I said that most Muslims were not violent fanatics. Instead, you trot out tired lines about Fox News... it's as if you believe that most of us on the right "act, think, or live in the same way."

Have a nice day, Ryan.

Bullsh*t abounds on all ... (Below threshold)

Bullsh*t abounds on all sides of the political spectrum. It's good to keep that in mind.

You mean like "But you just go ahead and keep repeating your Fox News nonsense."

You're right. Bullshit abounds.

JLawson,"But all t... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

JLawson,

"But all too often, accusations of hate or racism are thrown into the mix way too fast, simply because (I think) the person responding has run out of rational replies. (Or in the case of some, didn't have them in the first place and were running on gut feeling.)"

Absolutely. Explosive, highly emotional topics like race are often used in place of actual substantive arguments or assertions. This kind of thing happens all the time, and that that really does is dilute the meaning and clarity of terms like race, racism, etc.

"I don't know what the answer is to try to get everyone to understand that hate doesn't equal disagreement and disagreement doesn't equal hate."

Ya, I hear you. This is why all of the continued left vs. right politics in this country drive me crazy. People get so wound up that they no longer even listen to what the supposed "other side" has to say. It's maddening--and it only helps to perpetuate some of the serious problems we have politically these days, IMO.

One more thing, Ryan, since... (Below threshold)

One more thing, Ryan, since I forgot to mention it... did you miss the quotes I posted, the ones from Muslims opposed to the mosque? In your haste to paint me as some sort of Muslim-hater you neglected to respond.

I guess I was right when I wrote "Now, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent fanatics. Those fanatics, though, find very little opposition from the moderates, who are largely silent, either keeping their mouths shut or making excuses for the attacks. There are a few who do speak up in opposition... and they find no support from people like you."

Y'know, the part of my post you utterly ignored.

Alright Otto."We'r... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Alright Otto.

"We're done here, cupcake. You're not willing to treat an opponent with any sort of respect or argue against what I actually said."

If you feel that I was disrespectful, then I apologize.

"You largely ignored my real points, cherry-picking a few and not commenting on the ones where I said that most Muslims were not violent fanatics."

You pretty much unraveled your own point when you later made the claim that Islam is a breeding ground for extremism. And that was why I responded to that particular comment.

"Instead, you trot out tired lines about Fox News... it's as if you believe that most of us on the right "act, think, or live in the same way."

It's true: I'm not all that impressed with the reporting and political commentary at Fox News. But then, MSNBC isn't any better. In fact, it's a good idea to take all news media with a grain of salt, and to avoid taking anyone at face value without checking into other sources. I tend to think that a lot of what passes as "news" is nonsense, so don't take what I said about Fox personally. Ask me what I think about some of Michael Moore's BS.

And no, I certainly do not think that everyone on the right acts, thinks, or lives in the same way. Not at all. I think that far too many people talk about the right as if they all act and think alike, yes. But they don't, and the blatant differences between certain fiscal conservatives and certain social conservatives is just one example. Like the left, the right is actually a collection of different ideas and interests. Imagine that. And if you want to get into a discussion about this, by all means.

Otto,"One more thi... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Otto,

"One more thing, Ryan, since I forgot to mention it... did you miss the quotes I posted, the ones from Muslims opposed to the mosque? In your haste to paint me as some sort of Muslim-hater you neglected to respond. "

Yes, I saw that. There are all kinds of views about this project, and I think that many of them make points that are well worth considering. Some of the Muslims who are against it are arguing on similar grounds as conservatives who are basically asking people to think about respect and being considerate. And I think that this is actually a pretty good opportunity for people to figure out a way to deal with issues like this without freaking out.

As far as you being a so-called Muslim-hater--that's not what I think at all. But I do think that your understandings of the political histories of the middle east could be better. I disagree with how you talk about Islam because I think that you aren't looking at some of the deeper issues and histories that lie behind all of this. IMO, you're taking all sorts of causes and factors and reducing them to some kind of inherent fault in "Islam." To me, there's more to it. A LOT more.

JLawson,I just rea... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

JLawson,

I just realized that one of my sentences up there is a little typographically challenged. Should read:

"However, I am not sure if I agree with you that radical Islamists would see a cultural center that purports to support pluralism, social justice, community empowerment, and "respect for the diversity of expression and ideas between all people" as a victory."

Editing, it's what's for dinner.

By the way, thanks for always keeping things respectful. I know that we often disagree on certain points, but I always appreciate your willingness to discuss this stuff w/o resorting to the usual polemics.

"However, I am not sure ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"However, I am not sure if I agree with you that radical Islamists would see a cultural center that purports to support pluralism, social justice, community empowerment, and "respect for the diversity of expression and ideas between all people" is something that Muslim extremists would see as a victory. That's not exactly the ideology that Al Qaeda and the Taliban goes around spouting. I mean, pluralism is pretty much the last thing that AQ is pushing for."

Ryan - I've got a problem with the concept of 'social justice' (especially when used as it is so often as a club) but that's for another time. The 'respect for the diversity of expression and ideas between all people' is a nice piece of bafflegab which sounds good but is essentially meaningless, since they've already shown no respect for the expressions of others.

Basically it boils down to "We don't give a damn whether you like it or not, we want to build this mosque here to promote brotherhood and suchlike, and if you don't like it that's too damn bad." Yeah, sounds to me like they're really going for the approval of the neighborhood.

Add in the concepts of Taqya or Taqiya (differing spellings) where it's permissible to lie to the unbeliever... and you've got to wonder what's up.

And when Muslims themselves are objecting, you've got to wonder at the motivation. The Muslim culture is not the same as ours - it's not racist or intolerant to say so, any more than to say life and customs in a small town in Kansas is the same as in a Hassidic Jew community in New York. Overall there are similarities, but the cultures are quite different - and I think we keep trying to overlay our thoughts and cultural expectations on Islam - and being puzzled at how they don't fit.

Something's not right about this whole thing, not right at all. They're not exactly showing a spirit of cooperation such as I'd expect from a community-based organization that cared about the community, and the question of Cui Bono is a big one.

Gotta run, chat at ya later...

(sigh) Against my better ju... (Below threshold)

(sigh) Against my better judgment:

If you feel that I was disrespectful, then I apologize.

Don't apologize, just don't say those things and you won't have a problem. Do you really feel that the people opposing you on this get their ideas from Fox News? It's as if you can't accept that people can oppose you and still be rational. We must be propaganda-fed zombies if were dare to be offended by a mosque being built next to a site where thousands were murdered by Islamic terrorists.

You pretty much unraveled your own point when you later made the claim that Islam is a breeding ground for extremism.

No, I didn't. Nothing in the one statement "unravels" the other. Nothing I said implies that ALL (or even most) Muslims are violent fanatics just because their religion tends to breed them like no other.

And that was why I responded to that particular comment.

No, you responded to that because it fit your view of what the opposition believes. You didn't say anything about the other points at all.

It's true: I'm not all that impressed with the reporting and political commentary at Fox News.

Ryan, here's what you wrote: "But you just go ahead and keep repeating your Fox News nonsense." You never bothered to ask if I actually watch Fox (I don't... I don't watch any TV news), you just assumed I did, and that that was where I was getting my viewpoints. You accuse me of making unfair generalizations while you do the same thing.

But then, MSNBC isn't any better. In fact, it's a good idea to take all news media with a grain of salt, and to avoid taking anyone at face value without checking into other sources.

And what makes you think I don't take the media with a grain (in fact, a shaker full) of salt?

I tend to think that a lot of what passes as "news" is nonsense, so don't take what I said about Fox personally.

How am I supposed to take it? It's not a sign of respect... in fact, Ryan, what you said was a direct INSULT. I'm willing to let it go as you apologized (sort of... as in "I'm sorry if you were insulted," not "I'm sorry I wrote that.")

Ask me what I think about some of Michael Moore's BS.

Some other time, perhaps.

And no, I certainly do not think that everyone on the right acts, thinks, or lives in the same way. Not at all. I think that far too many people talk about the right as if they all act and think alike, yes. But they don't, and the blatant differences between certain fiscal conservatives and certain social conservatives is just one example.

If you believe that, then consider your words better next time. For the record, I'm largely libertarian with a sprinkling of conservative... I disagree strongly with the social cons on most issues.

Like the left, the right is actually a collection of different ideas and interests. Imagine that. And if you want to get into a discussion about this, by all means.

Again, some other time. Let's get back to the subject. The issue I have with Islam is that far too many of its practitioners are either silent about or are willing to excuse monstrous behavior. It's not just this mosque... it's the 9/11 attacks. It's Beslan. It's the London bombings. Madrid. Bali. The intifada in Israel. Honor killings. Salman Rushdie. Attacks on Jews around the world. Attacks on homosexuals. Theo van Gogh. Forced marriages. French riots. Threats and intimidation. Treatment of women like cattle. Frikkin' Cartoon riots.

Over and over and over and over again, we are subjected to Muslims acting outside the bounds of civilized behavior. And time and again we hear nothing from the vast majority of the moderates. A few speak up... and are ignored.

Or excused. You've bent over backward to avoid pointing out the elephant in the room, Ryan: ideology. Islam, like all religions, is also an IDEOLOGY. And currently, it's not a moderate one. AQ and the countless other terrorist groups don't exist in a vacuum. They seek to push that ideology, to spread their version of Islam across the world. But "their version" of Islam is still ISLAM. Extremist, violent Islam is taught at mosques around the world... and while the vast majority of those who learn it will not become terrorists, far too many do. And far too many support it. And far too many excuse it. And the rest are silent.

Back to the mosque. The people behind this mosque are not stupid. They know full well how it will be viewed by both the American people and the Islamic world. They have ignored repeated requests from both Muslims and non-Muslims alike to move the mosque. Yet those of us in opposition are painted as haters.

If you're looking for someone to criticize, look at Imam Rauf and the rest of the people behind the push to build it, Ryan. He's a far worthier target than the peanut gallery here at Wizbang.

As far as you being a so... (Below threshold)

As far as you being a so-called Muslim-hater--that's not what I think at all. But I do think that your understandings of the political histories of the middle east could be better.

I really wasn't talking about the political histories of the middle east at all. Don't assume you know what I understand about it based on a few comments here. You're making the mistake of thinking you know more than I do on the subject.

I disagree with how you talk about Islam because I think that you aren't looking at some of the deeper issues and histories that lie behind all of this.

Sorry, Ryan, those are excuses. The "deeper issues and histories" do not justify atrocities and terrorism, nor do they justify the silence of the Muslim majority when it comes to these acts. Much of the world has been subject to outside oppression at one time or another. Most of the world has been colonized at some point. Yet most of the world does not see anything close to the sheer numbers of violent fanatics that come out of the Islamic world. There must be another factor, and that factor is the teachings of Islam, teachings which justify murder in the name of the faith.

IMO, you're taking all sorts of causes and factors and reducing them to some kind of inherent fault in "Islam."

The problem here, Ryan, is that you're too eager to dismiss ideology as a cause for terrorism. Would you be making similar excuses, say, for 15th century Catholicism? For the burning of Jews and protestants? For the murder and oppression that took place under the banner of Christianity? Centuries ago, Christianity was a religion spread by the sword. It was reformed, step by painful step, a process that itself took centuries and is still ongoing.

To me, there's more to it. A LOT more.

Then how do you explain the predominance of terrorist activities from that one faith?

Otto,"It's as if y... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Otto,

"It's as if you can't accept that people can oppose you and still be rational. We must be propaganda-fed zombies if were dare to be offended by a mosque being built next to a site where thousands were murdered by Islamic terrorists."

Not at all. I don't think that everyone who opposes this project is by any means a propaganda-fed zombie (although I like that term). But I do think that some people fit that description. But this happens on the left and the right. I make that point pretty much every time I post on this site.

Also, I can respect and understand the arguments of people who oppose this project because they feel it is insensitive, provocative, and/or disrespectful.

"No, I didn't. Nothing in the one statement "unravels" the other. Nothing I said implies that ALL (or even most) Muslims are violent fanatics just because their religion tends to breed them like no other."

Your two points don't mesh at all. If you assert the idea that the majority of Muslims are not extremist, it MAKES NO SENSE to then claim that Islam is a "breeding ground" of extremism.

The primary mistake you're making is that you're conflating RELIGION with all of the social, political, ideological, and economic realities in places like the middle east. What "breeds" extremism? Violence, autocratic leadership, repression, poverty, lack of economic opportunity, and so on. Those are the factors that breed and shape extremism. While you argue that Islam is the primary CAUSE, I am arguing instead that it is just another one of the factors involved. Yes, it's an important factor, but assuming that it's the ROOT CAUSE misses some of the larger points.

"Ryan, here's what you wrote: "But you just go ahead and keep repeating your Fox News nonsense." You never bothered to ask if I actually watch Fox (I don't... I don't watch any TV news), you just assumed I did, and that that was where I was getting my viewpoints. You accuse me of making unfair generalizations while you do the same thing."

Apologies for insinuating that you get your views from Fox News. So, where do you generally get your viewpoints from?

"And what makes you think I don't take the media with a grain (in fact, a shaker full) of salt?"

I have no idea what you do with the news media. I was just kind of making a general statement that sums up my views about news media.

"How am I supposed to take it? It's not a sign of respect... in fact, Ryan, what you said was a direct INSULT. I'm willing to let it go as you apologized (sort of... as in "I'm sorry if you were insulted," not "I'm sorry I wrote that.")"

Are you serious? You're really telling me that you are this offended and insulted? I can understand why the comment may have irritated you, or why you would disagree, but I think you are somewhat overreacting to this relatively minor point.

"The issue I have with Islam is that far too many of its practitioners are either silent about or are willing to excuse monstrous behavior."

Ok, so WHO do you want to hear more from? The people in Afghanistan who are caught in the cross-fire? The people in Pakistan who are stuck somewhere between the power networks of the Taliban and the Pakistani govt? What is your advice for these people? What will ease your mind about their intentions? I'm genuinely interested to hear your views about this.

A lot of people act as if Muslims around the world are supposed to put on some big rally to collectively denounce groups like Al Qaeda. The truth is, Muslims around the world aren't as like-minded and politically connected as many in the so-called west like to pretend. Muslims in Indonesia don't necessarily have any real world connections to Muslims in Kenya, for example.

"Or excused. You've bent over backward to avoid pointing out the elephant in the room, Ryan: ideology. Islam, like all religions, is also an IDEOLOGY. And currently, it's not a moderate one."

Here's where your logic is faulty: Islam is NOT just one big coherent ideology. I don't know how many times I need to repeat that point. Also, you keep acting as if Islam is the prime causative factor, and it's not. Go read about the political histories of the middle east and tell me that Islam is THE PRIMARY CAUSE of the situation we are seeing today. It's not. It is ONE FACTOR, as I already wrote above.

You also keep arguing as if certain terrorist groups are representative of some inherent nature of Islam. In fact, these groups we are dealing with today have particular histories and tendencies. Al Qaeda represents a particular ideological view of the world, born out of particular histories, events, and individuals. Islam, as a religion, has many different practitioners around the world, and is connected to various social and political worldviews or ideologies. All you have to do is read about the various histories of particular groups and this becomes quite clear.

You keep conflating SPECIFIC GROUPS with the totality of Islam. It's important to separate these differences out if we are actually going to talk about terrorism, ideology, politics, and religion with any sort of accuracy.

"Back to the mosque. The people behind this mosque are not stupid. They know full well how it will be viewed by both the American people and the Islamic world. They have ignored repeated requests from both Muslims and non-Muslims alike to move the mosque. Yet those of us in opposition are painted as haters."

Again, I am not arguing that you are some "hater" as you keep saying. I can understand why you disagree. You know what I think? I think this is actually a good chance for people to find a way to deal with this issue WITHOUT letting this keep escalating into some polemic political/cultural battle over ideas. In my view, the radical agenda of AQ and other groups is challenged if people find ways to solve problems like with mutual respect and consideration. When it comes to the mosque/community center in NY, I think that if both sides could calm down enough to actually work through the issue, then an actual solution could be found. Instead, far too many people are completely overreacting and making this whole thing into a far bigger problem than it has to be.

Ultimately, I think it's important for the people behind the mosque project to SERIOUSLY consider and address the concerns and fears of people who oppose the project. I think they seriously need to think about what they are doing, considering all of the important social and political issues that the project brings up. This can't be just dismissed. At the same time, I think that there are plenty of Americans who could cool off a bit and realize that there is a lot more to Islam than just terrorism. The reactions of many people have been just ridiculous.

Otto:"The problem ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Otto:

"The problem here, Ryan, is that you're too eager to dismiss ideology as a cause for terrorism. Would you be making similar excuses, say, for 15th century Catholicism?"

Absolutely. I would make a very similar argument, although of course there are plenty of differences in the details. Anyone who argues that Catholicism was the primary cause of all the violence and conquest in the 15th century has no idea what they are talking about. There were a whole series of factors involved...and the economic factors were some of the most important. The fact that much of Europe was decimated from conflict and war was another factor. The fact that the Middle East had powerful control of key trade routes was another factor.

Catholicism was a factor, and it was a tool, but to argue that Catholic ideology somehow explains everything that happened in the Americas and elsewhere is seriously reductive. Remember, there were divisions within the Catholic church (go read about de las Casas, for starters). Catholicism, like Islam today, certainly had its centers of power but it was by no means monolithic. Just look at the differences between the different orders.

"Catholicism" did not cause colonialism, and did not make Spanish explorers do what they did. Political leaders made choices, ordered certain expeditions, and used their power to conquer new places. They did this for a variety of reasons, and not just because Catholicism told them they had to.

Individuals make decisions, chose to take part, or were forced by others to take part. Catholicism was used as a means to rationalize and justify all kinds of actions.

Ideology is a factor, but I think far too many people act as if particular ideological systems FORCE people to do things. PEOPLE force people to do things, and they often use whatever tools they can (often religious and political ideologies) in order to accomplish their goals.

"Then how do you explain th... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Then how do you explain the predominance of terrorist activities from that one faith?"

The same way that I would explain the fact that the vast majority of colonists who conquered the New World were Christians: history and geography.

Would you argue that "Christianity" is somehow to blame for all of the conquest, violence, and conflict that took place during the colonial period. I would argue that Christian ideology was certainly a factor, but it was by no means the only factor, let alone the MAIN CAUSE.

If you read about the economic and political histories of Europe, it becomes clear that while Christianity was certainly an important component, it was by no means the cause. I'm not a big fan of taking a whole slew of critical factors and just pretending that one gives us all the answers.

The same goes for trying to understand Islam and the Middle East today. Start with history and geography, don't discount all of the other factors, and move forward. Make sure to include all of the Muslim AND non-Muslim actors who have taken part in the conflicts, and what those conflicts were all about.

If you think all of the conflict in the middle east boils down to "culture" or differences in "ideology" then I don't know what to tell you. Go read about the end of World War I and the ways in which the different states were set up. A lot more of this boils down to politics and economics than many people are willing to admit.

Your two points don't me... (Below threshold)

Your two points don't mesh at all. If you assert the idea that the majority of Muslims are not extremist, it MAKES NO SENSE to then claim that Islam is a "breeding ground" of extremism.

It's like we've hit a wall. There is NOTHING in the one statement (that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists) that is contradicted by the other (that Islam is a breeding ground for terrorists). Nothing, Ryan.

Let's try a very simplified diagram of my point: Members of Religion A have a 1% chance of becoming extremist terrorists. Members of Religion B have a 0.1% chance of becoming extremist terrorists. Members of Religion C have a 0.001% chance of becoming extremist terrorists. If I say that religion A is a breeding ground for extremists or terrorists, I am in no way saying that all, or even most members of that religion are terrorists.

I don't know how much clearer I can say it. There is no logical contradiction there, Ryan.

The primary mistake you're making is that you're conflating RELIGION with all of the social, political, ideological, and economic realities in places like the middle east.

Religion suffuses the middle east. Islam isn't just part of the culture, it forms the bedrock of the culture. It is social. It is political. It is ideological. It's even economic.

What "breeds" extremism? Violence, autocratic leadership, repression, poverty, lack of economic opportunity, and so on.

Really? Why don't we see massive suicide bombings and religious extremism everywhere there is violence, autocratic leadership, repression, poverty, and a lack of economic opportunity? That's most of the planet.

Why were the 9/11 hijackers from mostly middle-class to well off families? Why didn't we see the same extremism form in India as it did in Pakistan when the British partitioned the old country? We don't see Hindus blowing up London subways, even though Great Britain has a sizable Hindu population.

Those are the factors that breed and shape extremism. While you argue that Islam is the primary CAUSE, I am arguing instead that it is just another one of the factors involved.

If you say that Islam is one of the factors involved, then how much? Again, many, many terrorists are not poor oppressed people but middle-class or even wealthy. I am arguing that Islam is, in fact, the main cause, an ideology that is in desperate need of reform.

Yes, it's an important factor,

Is it? You have been arguing that it WASN'T an important factor.

but assuming that it's the ROOT CAUSE misses some of the larger points.

I don't think you give ideology nearly enough credit for influencing human behavior. Poverty, oppression, injustice, these are not enough to turn people into fanatics. They do not cause cultists to take poison. They do not cause people to strap bombs to their children. They do not cause people to plot the extermination of Jews.

Every human subscribes to some kind of ideology, so the only thing we can do is look at the ideologies and compare them. Results matter. Let's look at India and Pakistan. Before the British drew a line down the country and shoved the Muslims and Hindus to different sides, they were culturally one people (even though religious differences caused great turmoil). They had similar levels of poverty and lack of economic opportunity, both had been oppressed by the British. Yet one nation, India, has clawed its way up, becoming a democracy and an economic power. The other has become an unstable, corrupt and failed hotbed of terrorism which has suffered under military autocrats for much of its history.

Why? Why one and not both. There's one key difference, Ryan: Islam.

warchild, if you ... (Below threshold)
warchild:
warchild, if you look at what people are actually saying here, and not just hearing what you want to, you'll see that you and your ideological comrades are saying the most hateful things.

Your core philosophy is based on absurdities and hypocrisies. "We hate haters! We have no tolerance for the intolerant!"

Note that you can't actually quote any "hate" in our articles -- you have to paraphrase it in ways none of us would actually speak. And in the process, you strip our words of their actual intended meaning and simplify them to the point of dishonest distortion.

In other words, you can't properly hate us for what we say, so you rewrite it into what you wished we'd said and then hate us for what you yourself say.

Not helpful. Not fair. Not honest.

And McVeigh -- he told a lot of people that "science is my religion." Further, he did not commit his attack in the name of God -- unlike, say, the vast majority of other terrorist events that are punctuated by the terrorist(s) shouting "Allahu Akbar!"

Grow up a little, warchild. Learn to deal with reality, not your projections and stereotypes and fantasies.


This is a frankly a better post than your last which was pure nastiness (which in fairness I gleefully returned) and I actually think you make some fair points in it. For instance, it is safe to say I was generalizing in using the term "hate." I have gotten into debates with some conservatives on blogs who have said things such as, "Muslims can't be americans" Which to me is pretty hateful and I have seen a few post here that "I don't trust muslims" which to me if not hate is a way of grouping people together in such a way that makes it easier to hate. However to paint in broadstrokes is dangerous to actual debate and I think it is safe to say having your read posts that your view point is not one that fits the above quotes and I'm sure many conservatives fall in line more with your way of thinking.

Although let's be fair, both sides do it. my support of health care does not make say, a suppoter of the second coming of Stalin, as many of your idelogical brethern have insuated. Not unless isreal, Denmark, germany, Australia, and others are all actually soviet style dictatorships. That kind of broad painting happens but should be avoided by both sides.


On Mcveigh: He also, as I pointed said he beleived in god. My point in mentioning that is to point out that it is equally a generalization to label a large group by the actions of a few. Al Quaeda is large and crazy, but if you think about in comparision to the 1 billion muslims it is a pretty small fringe and I bet a lot of accountantss, bankers, business owners etc.. don't appreciate being labeld anti american just because they happen to be muslim. Most are not. Whether Mcveigh commited crimes in the name of religion (and their is actually some evidece he believed in a very fringe from white supremacy chritinaity that influenced his thinking) does not matter, it is about labeling a group because of the craziness of a splinter group which I think is wrong. Apprently you do as well because you took umbridge at being thrown in with a few hateful comments that don't reflect your view on the issue.

Finally your post to "grow up" cuts both ways. you were the one suggesting I should get a lawyer, not a mature response to one you disagree with. It seems we were both a bit guilty in this area. But welcome to the internet, it can bring out this kind of thing in two otherwise mature people. I'll try to refrain. I hope you do the same.

Gotta get going, errands to... (Below threshold)

Gotta get going, errands to run, places to go, humans to destroy in the name of my Glorious Robot Overlords.

Apologies for insinuating that you get your views from Fox News.

Fair enough, apology accepted.

So, where do you generally get your viewpoints from?

Everywhere.

I read. A LOT. I read everything I can get my grubby hands on. I read several news sites each day, tons of blogs, and mountains of books. My views come from reading various sources and turning their ideas over in my mind, deciding whether they make sense or not.

For my attitudes about ideology and its role in human behavior, I been influenced by Robert Conquest (specifically "Reflections of a Ravaged Century" and "The Dragons of Expectation"), Lee Harris ("Civilization and its Enemies"), and Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements." Most of them don't touch very much on Islam, but talk a lot about movements such as Nazi-ism and communism... there are striking parallels between those movements and the Islamic terrorists.

Otto,If I... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Otto,

If I say that religion A is a breeding ground for extremists or terrorists, I am in no way saying that all, or even most members of that religion are terrorists.

You're not really getting my point of contention. You keep wanting to claim that Islam is somehow a fundamental, primary, and universal cause. But, according to your logic, it would actually be a lot MORE reasonable to claim that Islam is a breeding ground of moderates, since the vast majority of Muslims are in fact moderates. Do you see what I am getting at here?

I would avoid making any broad claims about what Islam does and does not automatically produce, and instead say that Islam is a religion/faith/ideology that has various different understandings and practices around the world. It CAN be a primary factor in the recruitment and training of terrorists, but this is not automatically so...therefore it makes little sense to make sweeping generalizations about the inherent nature of Islam.

I see your point from a strictly logic-based perspective...but if you allow for that then of course you have to allow for the reverse. And then the contention becomes meaningless. If Islam can be easily defined as BOTH a breeding ground for moderates (which it is) and a breeding ground for terrorists (which is also the case), clearly there are some other factors involved.

"Religion suffuses the middle east. Islam isn't just part of the culture, it forms the bedrock of the culture. It is social. It is political. It is ideological. It's even economic."

Agreed. Islam is absolutely wrapped up in all of these things. And that's why it is an important factor.

But what I am saying is that all of the conflicts in the Middle East, and the subsequent social conditions and problems, cannot simply be explained as a factor of "Islam". Look at Iran. It wasn't the extremist state that it is today 40 something years ago. Islam was still a factor, but the extremism that took over that country was in fact precipitated by the authoritarian leadership of the Shah, which led to radicalized revolution, and EVEN worse conditions. But to simply explain what we are seeing in Iran today as something that was caused by the inherent nature of Islam is to ignore the critical role that political leaders like the Shah played. And that's just one example. State repression, violence, poverty, corruption...all of these factors play an important role.

"Really? Why don't we see massive suicide bombings and religious extremism everywhere there is violence, autocratic leadership, repression, poverty, and a lack of economic opportunity? That's most of the planet."

Suicide bombing and religious extremism are just two examples of the types of terrorism/extremism that we see around the world. But they are certainly not the only types. Do you honestly think that repression, poverty, corruption, and other factors don't breed extremism, terrorism, and violence in non-Islamic parts of the world?

"Why were the 9/11 hijackers from mostly middle-class to well off families? Why didn't we see the same extremism form in India as it did in Pakistan when the British partitioned the old country? We don't see Hindus blowing up London subways, even though Great Britain has a sizable Hindu population."

All of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, which is what I would classify a pretty repressive and autocratic state. And those 19 were pretty severe political AND religious ideologues, no? Not all terrorists or extremists are poor, but any means. But plenty of terrorists do take advantage of poor people. AQ being a case in point.

And there has been plenty of violence between Brits and India in the past--that has changed after colonialism and the increasing power/autonomy of the Indian State. Now, Indian is no paradise, but Pakistan still has a pretty corrupt government in comparison.

"If you say that Islam is one of the factors involved, then how much?"

See, that's the problem. It depends on who you're talking about. There isn't some checklist that you can run through to figure this out. I tend to see something like religion or ideology that can be used for various purposes, rather than as something that has automatic, predictable results. Obviously, the Taliban uses Islam as a means to control and instill fear in people. At the same time, there are plenty of moderate Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism.

"Again, many, many terrorists are not poor oppressed people but middle-class or even wealthy. I am arguing that Islam is, in fact, the main cause, an ideology that is in desperate need of reform."

I know what you're arguing. And I am arguing that "Islam" is definitely not one big coherent ideological system. There are many forms, and SOME of them are closely tied with terrorism.

"Is it? You have been arguing that it WASN'T an important factor."

No. Of course it can be an important factor. But it's not automatically. I am arguing that Islam should not be somehow seen as the main CAUSE, just as there is no reason to assume that Christianity was the CAUSE of colonialism. Analogy: While gasoline may be used to start a forest fire, it makes no sense to go around assuming that gasoline is the main cause of forest fires.

"I don't think you give ideology nearly enough credit for influencing human behavior."

No, I think that belief/ideology is a very important factor, but I am trying to argue that it's by no means the sole factor, let alone the primary factor. That's all I'm saying.

So what you're saying is that there is something inherent in Islam that creates terrorists, right? So how, then, do you explain the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists or terrorists? If there is something deeply entrenched or automatic, how is it that most people do not show these symptoms?

"They do not cause cultists to take poison."

Hmmm. So did the Jonestown people poison themselves out of pure ideological belief, or was it the fear of Jones's voice screaming at them through a loudspeaker and the armed guards that surrounded them?

"Every human subscribes to some kind of ideology, so the only thing we can do is look at the ideologies and compare them."

If you're going to do that, then you have to learn to differentiate between different ideological or cultural systems. Being "Muslim" is not the same all around the world. Go read about the histories of Islam in a place like Indonesia, and then read about it somewhere like Morocco or Ghana. It's not all just one big shared system.

"Before the British drew a line down the country and shoved the Muslims and Hindus to different sides, they were culturally one people (even though religious differences caused great turmoil)."

Being in the same national boundaries does not mean that people automatically share the same culture. You're mixing terms here: nationality is not the same as culture. Look at Iraq, where three different groups were smashed into one nation-state. Not the same cultures, by any means. Same goes for India.

"Why? Why one and not both. There's one key difference, Ryan: Islam."

There are a lot of key differences. You just love to explain everything based on religion, don't you? Let me ask you this: During the so-called Dark Ages, when the Middle East was a center of power and commerce, would you argue that this success was solely due to "Islam"? I wouldn't.

Warchild, your analogies ar... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Warchild, your analogies are just as absurd as Dane and Galoob. I have never heard any conservative of note say Obamacare is like Stalineque policies. Grow up.

ryan a, when the 4 Jews were shot down in their car the other day in cold blood, I do believe I say the Palestinians parading and celebrating in the streets. Now, only some of the muslims pulled the trigger but the support and approval was shared by thousands of muslims. As happened after 9/11.

I firmly believe that the left things terrorists only hate and want to kill republicans when in fact, they want you dead ryan a for excercising your freedoms as you see fit. Muslims have not done much in the past decade to garner trust on my part. In fact, the opposite. ww

"I firmly believe that the ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"I firmly believe that the left things terrorists only hate and want to kill republicans when in fact, they want you dead ryan a for excercising your freedoms as you see fit."

Willie, while I may disagree with you about various aspects of this debate, don't think for a second that I have some naive view about who terrorists would or would not be willing to kill. By no means do I think that terrorists would "only kill republicans". There are plenty of people who would kill Americans--liberal or conservative--with little hesitation.

That said, I still don't see the use or need in misidentifying where the threats really exist. That's why I keep arguing for people to stop making such sweeping claims about all Muslims, and instead focus on the specific groups who are actually the threat.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy