ChrisWeigant.com

Obama Reframes Mosque Debate

[ Posted Monday, August 16th, 2010 – 17:21 PDT ]

President Barack Obama, in a White House Ramadan address last Friday, expressed his thoughts on the "Ground Zero mosque" debate, and in doing so not only got it exactly right, but also managed to change the debate in a considerable way which few have noticed yet. Because in his comments Friday (and in his off-the-cuff comment the next day), the president refocused the debate from the notion of "should be allowed" to the question of "should." In doing so, Obama elevated the level of the debate for both him and the project's detractors.

The initial controversy over building an Islamic cultural center two and a half blocks away from "Ground Zero" was cast in the harsh light of "there oughta be a law" by most of the people who were outraged at the very idea. A mother who lost her child on 9/11 put it thusly: "I think it's despicable, and I think it's atrocious that anyone would even consider allowing them to build a mosque near the World Trade Center." Note that "allowing them to build." As I said, before the zoning board ruled, the argument was that the government should act, and prevent the mosque from being built. Unfortunately, this would have been impossibly unconstitutional -- the government cannot prevent a mosque from being built there, unless we're all ready to throw the First Amendment in the garbage can. This fact, though, didn't stop those opposed to the idea from demanding that the government "do something" about the plans to build the mosque (Bill of Rights be damned!).

The entire controversy started from this basic position: the mosque should not be allowed to be built. But Obama has moved the framework of this debate, even though most in the media largely missed it this weekend (preferring to chase the "news cycle" story about whether he had "walked his support back" or not, which was pretty ridiculous). Obama showed that the argument is not a simple one, and in fact has two major segments that need to be addressed separately. The first is the question of whether or not the mosque "should be allowed" to be built. The second is whether it "should" be built.

It sounds like splitting hairs, which is why the media thought (much to their delight) that they had somehow caught Obama in some sort of contradiction. They hadn't. Obama, Saturday morning, merely separated the two issues for people who hadn't really grasped the implications of what he had said the night before.

Obama, who was (if you'll remember) previously a professor of constitutional law, came out very strongly against any sort of government interference in the decision to build a mosque anywhere that New York City had zoned appropriately. This really shouldn't be all that shocking, as it is truly the only position which can honestly be held in accordance with the Constitution. Any other position is to advocate for enshrining bigotry in our laws -- "a church may be built here, but not a mosque." This is, at its core, seriously un-American.

But there is a second issue here, one that Obama addressed in his remarks Saturday. This is the issue of whether a mosque "should" be built on the site. And that is an issue which is fully open for debate. Even outright bigotry is still an acceptable position on this question, if by "acceptable" one means "faithful to our Constitution." Every citizen is free to argue until they are blue in the face that a mosque should not be built at the site (for whatever their reason), and everyone is free to attempt to convince the imam not to build a mosque there, in any legal way they choose. That is the force of public opinion, and it can indeed be a mighty thing. Public opinion has already led to the imam deciding to include a memorial to the 9/11 victims in the plans, and has convinced him to change the name of the project. Of course, it's a free country, and he could indeed have remained firm and refused to do either -- without having to worry that he would "not be allowed" to do so by law.

The real news was that Obama chose to insert himself in the debate, of course. Previously, the White House's position was that they had no comment on a "local issue." The fervor was even dying down a bit, ever since the planning board had ruled that the project could go forward, except in the right-wing media. Obama (as I heard one breathless reporter describe it this weekend) "poured gasoline on the fire" by inserting his remarks into the fray.

But I have to say, Obama got this one right. He stood up for a principle, strongly. He didn't care whether public opinion agreed with him or not, because the principle was the important thing. And it's a pretty good principle to be standing up for. His whole speech is worth reading, if you've just heard excerpts (it's a very short speech). Every paragraph consistently says pretty much the same thing: the government does not discriminate on the basis of religion. Here is but one example:

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

Note that "not be treated differently by their government" phrase. This was Obama's core argument, and it is indeed unshakeable.

The media, apparently, heard a different speech. Or maybe they just didn't take the time to read it or listen to it. Because when Obama pointed out the next day that he wasn't talking about "the wisdom" of building a mosque there, the media went into feeding-frenzy mode, convinced that Obama was somehow "walking back" his earlier remarks. He wasn't -- he was clarifying that he had been standing up for a basic constitutional right, and wasn't even addressing the overriding issue about whether it was a good idea or not. Which (again, read his speech) was exactly right.

As I said, this changes the tenor of the debate. Because it is not a contradiction -- or, if it is a contradiction, then it is one shared by many Americans -- to be supportive of the right to build the mosque but also to be against actually building it. A recent poll commissioned by none other than Fox News showed this in stark terms. While 64 percent of the people said it would be wrong to build the mosque there, 61 percent of the same people said the group has the right to build it there.

Rights, though, are thankfully not subject to the whim of the electorate, because they are guaranteed to all. Therefore public opinion polls are largely meaningless when it comes to basic rights. But the appropriateness of the project is another kettle of fish entirely. And it is a subject which while not subject to public opinion, is doubtlessly influenced by public opinion. Even bigoted public opinion.

The entire story, to me at least, seems to be somewhat overblown. There is another mosque a mere two blocks from the site under discussion. Using the logic of the detractors of the new project, this mosque should also probably be moved further away. But I have yet to see anyone advocating this position (although I fully admit, I don't read a whole lot of right-wing opinion, so I could very well be wrong). And -- horror of horrors -- Islamic services are held inside the Pentagon, which was also attacked on 9/11. Using the anti-mosque logic, there should also be loud cries to ban this worship from the "hallowed ground" of a 9/11 attack site. So far, I haven't heard any (see previous qualification).

There are also dark intimations about the whole project, and the imam in charge of it. The plan is to build a community center -- complete with a movie theater and other secular usage -- with a prayer room in it, two and a half blocks away from the World Trade Center site.

I have to digress here for a moment, because one tangent that bugs me is the phrase that detractors have latched upon for describing the "hallowed ground" they are talking about: "in the shadow of Ground Zero." This is a really stupid phrase. I will give credit for the poetic nature of the imagery, but when actually examined, this concept is truly laughable. First off, "Ground Zero" is a hole in the ground. Holes in the ground do not cast shadows, unless you count the shadows actually cast inside the hole. Literally, the phrase is meaningless. But even taking it at the intended meaning: "in the shadow that used to be there from the World Trade Center twin towers," it's still pretty silly. Because if that truly was the yardstick being used here, then we'd have to draw an arc (a little more than a half-circle) around the World Trade Center site, with the radius of the arc being dependent on what angle the sun reaches during the Winter Solstice (when the shadow's sweep would be greatest). I'm no civil engineer, so I cannot tell you how many blocks of Manhattan this would encompass, but the reason it's a silly metric to use is that the arc would only cut to the east, north, and west. Meaning you could build right next door to the site -- to the south -- and not be caught "in the shadow" of any building built there.

But, to come out of the shadows (as it were), opponents of the project have been casting similar darkness upon Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, with all sorts of rumors and unfounded suspicions. Here is a fact seldom pointed out in all of this mudslinging -- Rauf has, quite obviously, gone through some background checks with the federal government. According to Hendrick Hertzberg of The New Yorker magazine, "The F.B.I. tapped [Rauf] to conduct 'sensitivity training' for agents and cops." He is about to embark on the third trip to the Middle East -- paid for by the American taxpayers -- to talk about religious tolerance in America. As a State Department spokesman said:

Imam Feisal will be traveling to Qatar, Bahrain, and the U.A.E. on a U.S. Government-sponsored trip to the Middle East. He will discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance. ... We have about 1,200 of these kinds of programs every year, sending experts on all fields overseas. Last year, we had 52 trips that were specifically focused on religious -- promoting religious tolerance. We will expect to have roughly the same number of programs this year. For Imam Feisal, this will be his third trip under this program. In 2007, he visited Bahrain, Morocco, the U.A.E. and Qatar. And earlier this year in January, he also visited Egypt. So we have a long-term relationship with him. His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States.

Got that? Rauf not only helped the F.B.I. train agents and cops, but he's also participated in a State Department program to promote religious tolerance. And has been doing so for years. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, when sent on the first of these trips, George W. Bush was president.

This doesn't exactly fit in with the rumor and innuendo about the imam from those desperately trying to paint him as some sort of terrorist or terrorist-lover, does it? One assumes that either the F.B.I. or the State Department (or both) have done a full background check on this guy, and he came up squeaky clean. If he hadn't, I simply don't believe he would have been allowed to participate in any sort of official program from either federal department.

But no matter where the debate about the "Ground Zero mosque" goes in the next few weeks, even rumor and innuendo and wild-eyed conspiracy theories can all be seen as part of the normal flow of American public discussion. Even flat-out bigotry. As I said, it's a free country, and every citizen is free to espouse any view they wish.

And there is indeed a rational argument, free of bigotry and innuendo, to be made to the imam to convince him not to build at his chosen location. This argument hinges on sensitivity. Disney famously backed down from plans to build a "historical" theme park right next to a Civil War battlefield, due to overwhelmingly negative public opinion. And, while it didn't happen in our country, religious sensitivities can be taken into account as well, as when a group of nuns decided not to build next to a Nazi death camp, in deference to overwhelming public opinion against the project. I'm not saying I completely buy into the sensitivity argument myself, but it has to be seen as a valid reason to argue that the imam should consider moving his project.

This is where the argument now lies -- in the realm of public opinion. Whether based on sensitivity or based on naked fear or hatred of Muslims, this is the arena these arguments will now be debated in. As they should be. Whether the arguments range into religious intolerance or not, they will all be about whether the mosque "should" be built. Again, as they should be.

What Obama managed to do this weekend was to change the whole framework of this debate. Even the critics of the mosque now are beginning to couch their language in phrases like "well, we're not saying the government should stop it, we're saying the imam should rethink the idea." This is likely why Obama inserted himself into the debate in the first place. As a constitutional scholar, he felt it was important to make the point that the government should never have the authority to make such a discriminatory decision, because those are the very freedoms we're fighting to protect against enemies who attack us. Saturday, without contradiction, he further pointed out that defending someone's rights is not the equivalent of defending their words or actions. Here is his full quote from Saturday morning:

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about.

Rather than "walking his support back" (as the entire media universe gleefully decided), Obama was pointing out the difference between the two concepts. Which is a healthy addition to the discussion. Reasonable people can disagree on the question of whether the mosque "should" be built, in other words, but it goes against everything this country stands for to try to argue that the mosque "should not be allowed" to be built by government decree.

Personally, I see no contradiction at all. Even if the media read him wrong, President Obama forcefully changed the entire framing of the debate, and in a very healthy direction -- and he did so without interjecting himself into the raging public-opinion debate about whether the project was "proper" or not. He showed true presidential leadership, and political courage. And now that he has done so, the debate will continue, but it will hopefully continue on a much different level than before.

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

251 Comments on “Obama Reframes Mosque Debate”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    While 64 percent of the people said it would be wrong to build the mosque there, 61 percent of the same people said the group has the right to build it there.

    It is polls like this that prove I am guilty of seriously underestimating the capacity of the electorate for thoughtful examination of an issue.

    I'm going to try to refrain from making that mistake again!

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Liz -

    What scares me is the fact that 39 percent of the people didn't agree they had the right to build it. That kind of fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution is likely the reason why Obama's remarks were necessary.

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, if we could just get Obama and Biden, the two constitutional scholars on this team, to reframe their own thinking on the issue of gay marriage ...

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    This comment really should be on Friday's article, but I'm lazy.

    Don't read too much into the appeals court ruling to continue the stay. I predicted this last week, although I didn't write about it. I told my wife, "the gay fiancees shouldn't get their hopes up about getting married next week" because the appeals court is likely to protect the status quo during the appeals process. It just makes it easier, legally, for them, because they don't create another group of people that weren't included in the original case. So, it's the appeals court (as they almost always do) preserving the status quo before the case is ultimately decided, and really has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case at all. This is, after all, the 9th Circuit, who will very likely uphold the original ruling.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Like you said, President Obama showed great leadership and political courage on this issue and I'm guessing that IF the media had gotten his message right, then that 39% figure would be quite a bit lower.

    It all boils down - again - to the media and their total incompetence and ineptitude in reporting on serious and complicated issues.

    We have to remind ourselves sometimes that Obama/Biden must operate in this "toxic and dysfunctional media and political culture" which is an extremely difficult environment to overcome in getting their message out to the people ... on this and any other issue.

  6. [6] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I have to digress here for a moment, because one tangent that bugs me is the phrase that detractors have latched upon for describing the "hallowed ground" they are talking about: "in the shadow of Ground Zero." This is a really stupid phrase. I will give credit for the poetic nature of the imagery, but when actually examined, this concept is truly laughable. First off, "Ground Zero" is a hole in the ground. Holes in the ground do not cast shadows, unless you count the shadows actually cast inside the hole. Literally, the phrase is meaningless. But even taking it at the intended meaning: "in the shadow that used to be there from the World Trade Center twin towers," it's still pretty silly.

    Y'know, we have historic landmarks in the city, Chris. One of them was a buiding Bill Ayers and the Weatherman bombed. That was "special" enough to be given landmark status.

    And here we have "Cordoba" House (check out the significance of that name and ask yourself why it was even named that), formerly known as the Burlington Coat Factory, which was hit with the landing gear of the first plane. So it's not like this is just any ol' building down there. There are people who seriously want this building deemed an historic landmark. Yet Bloomberg's hand-picked panel, for the life of them, just can't seem to manage to find any historic significance to a building that sustained a hit by one of the planes — or "missiles," if you like, since they were being used as weapons — which killed 3,000 people in the biggest attack on the United States.

    Homegrown-terrorist Bill Ayers Weatherman bombing? Oh, why, yes, of course, that's terribly historic. The one and only building to get hit by a set of wheels on 9/11? Hmmmmmm.... no, not quite seeing anything special about that. Conveniently enough.

    And while the hole in the ground two blocks down (where they continue to find human remains) may not cast a shadow anymore, the Burlington building — now renamed after the victory/conquest site in Cordoba, Spain — does.

    This is not about denying anybody their "right" to practice their religion. This is about whether a "conquest" site is being built, with God knows whose money, on the site of a building that got hit by the plane's landing gear, and is scheduled for groundbreaking on the 10th-year anniversary of the terrorists' glorious victory.

    And it's got nothing to do with hating Muslims, either. There are Muslims speaking out against this. REAL "moderate" Muslims, unlike this utter fraud, who refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization and is down on record as saying that American shares in the blame of the attack.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    I suspect that you think you are being clever by implying, at every perceived opportunity, that Cordoba House is connected to terrorists. I’d like to read what the moderate Muslims you anonymously reference, not surprisingly, have to say about all of this. But, I guess you forgot to provide one of your links.

    As for Imam Rauf being “an utter fraud” ... you are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it is an ill-informed one

    Your landmark argument falls flat just as soon as you consider all of the buildings in the area that were hit by falling pieces of either aircraft and will never be designated at landmark sites with historical significance.

    And you are flat out wrong to say that the building in question here was “hit by one of the planes ... which killed 3,000 people in the biggest attack on the United States.” I suspect that this was a simple error in typing on your part or maybe its just hard to keep all of your baseless statements straight.

    If you are going to be engaged in tossing around innuendos about the significance of ‘Cordoba House’ or where the funding is coming from, then you might want to consider providing some evidence to back up your statements. Otherwise, you do serious damage to your already waning credibility.

    Finally,I find it quite odd how you refer to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks as the 'terrorist’s glorious victory'. But, that’s just me.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Don't read too much into the appeals court ruling to continue the stay. I predicted this last week, although I didn't write about it. I told my wife, "the gay fiancees shouldn't get their hopes up about getting married next week" because the appeals court is likely to protect the status quo during the appeals process. It just makes it easier, legally, for them, because they don't create another group of people that weren't included in the original case. So, it's the appeals court (as they almost always do) preserving the status quo before the case is ultimately decided, and really has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case at all. This is, after all, the 9th Circuit, who will very likely uphold the original ruling.

    I think I got a couple or three things confused on this score in the comments on Friday's column but, I'm too tired to go back there!

    Thanks for the clarification!

  9. [9] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    As I said, before the zoning board ruled, the argument was that the government should act, and prevent the mosque from being built. Unfortunately, this would have been impossibly unconstitutional...

    Not if the funding were linked to terrorist organizations, it wouldn't. Anybody remember this?

    U.S. to Seize Mosques, Skyscraper Linked to Iran
    Feds move to seize N.Y. skyscraper, 4 mosques

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wfZfVlXcY5UJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33894877/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/+terrorist+building+on+5th+ave.+seized&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Not everybody professing to be America's friend is America's friend. We do, indeed, have terrorist organizations funneling money into this country for "projects." This GZ Iman — who's a "moderate" like my dog is a cat — keeps talking about "building bridges" and "healing wounds." Only I think we can all agree that Plan-A has failed, dismally. Yet he still isn't budging. Not even after having had the NY Governor offer him FREE property elsewhere.

    So one has to start asking the questions: Why? Why must it be THAT building? The answer is not about constitutional rights, as that's not even a point of contention and is nothing but a red herring. So why will ONYLY that building — "Cordoba" House — do?

    Nobody has to get Columbo in here to figure that one out, Chris. There's something wrong the big picture.

  10. [10] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    What Obama managed to do this weekend was to change the whole framework of this debate. Even the critics of the mosque now are beginning to couch their language in phrases like "well, we're not saying the government should stop it, we're saying the imam should rethink the idea." This is likely why Obama inserted himself into the debate in the first place.

    I suspect it was more the case of his pandering to a Muslim audience on Ramadan Iftar dinner night at the White House, telling them what they like to hear three months before an election. IOW, Obama merely inserted foot-A into mouth-B, transforming a local controversy into a red-hot national debate, with more than one Dem candidates on the campaign trail REEEEEEEEEEEALLY wishing he had found something else to talk about. When Harry Reid starts siding with Sarah Palin, it means that a big political boo-boo has been made, not that some masterful, crafty strategy is being rolled by Obama.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Who the heck invited you here, anyway!?

    Oh, wait ...

  12. [12] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Rather than "walking his support back" (as the entire media universe gleefully decided), Obama was pointing out the difference between the two concepts. Which is a healthy addition to the discussion.

    Putting aside that nobody was even arguing his point, I'm not sure Dems on the campaign trial would agree with you, there, my spinning friend. 'D Obama wasn't exactly laying out talking points for the party. His two-day comments amounted to "Well, I will say this" and "No, I won't address that." Not the clearest, most concise message the man has ever sent down the pike. In fact, I believe they call it back-pedalling.

    Pat Cadell had some interesting things to say, I thought: http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/8cf2bcf60654d19544184a3d47991389-194.html

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    OK, here's a question for you. What do you think about the mosque that already exists 4 blocks from Ground Zero? Think it should be allowed to continue its existence? What about Muslims praying in the Pentagon? That OK with you?

    Just curious as to your answers on those questions.

    Here's a hypothetical: if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that every dollar spent was in no way connected to terrorists, would your feelings on the mosque be the same, or would you be OK with it?

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the old CW is back.. :D

    This is a positive framing on a very bad situation for Democrats... :D

    Public opinion has already led to the imam deciding to include a memorial to the 9/11 victims in the plans, and has convinced him to change the name of the project.

    Link for this?? I have not heard of this. If it's true, it's a good sign to be sure.. :D

    The entire story, to me at least, seems to be somewhat overblown. There is another mosque a mere two blocks from the site under discussion. Using the logic of the detractors of the new project, this mosque should also probably be moved further away. But I have yet to see anyone advocating this position (although I fully admit, I don't read a whole lot of right-wing opinion, so I could very well be wrong). And -- horror of horrors -- Islamic services are held inside the Pentagon, which was also attacked on 9/11. Using the anti-mosque logic, there should also be loud cries to ban this worship from the "hallowed ground" of a 9/11 attack site. So far, I haven't heard any (see previous qualification).

    Not relevant, as they were already there at the time of the attacks.

    The Cordoba Mosque is being built as a sign of conquest..

    But, inadvertently I am sure, you just negated one of the reasons to build the Cordoba Mosque.

    If there IS a mosque a couple blocks away, then that could serve the needs of the Muslim community and a new mosque doesn't NEED to be built.

    Got that? Rauf not only helped the F.B.I. train agents and cops,

    Oh come on.. :D Rauf no more "trained" FBI agents and cops than a person who does a sexual harassment seminar "trains" FBI agents or cops.

    It was a sensitivity seminar. Not training...

    but he's also participated in a State Department program to promote religious tolerance.

    Once again, the idea that Islam is a religion of tolerance is pure bunk..

    And there is indeed a rational argument, free of bigotry and innuendo, to be made to the imam to convince him not to build at his chosen location. This argument hinges on sensitivity. Disney famously backed down from plans to build a "historical" theme park right next to a Civil War battlefield, due to overwhelmingly negative public opinion. And, while it didn't happen in our country, religious sensitivities can be taken into account as well, as when a group of nuns decided not to build next to a Nazi death camp, in deference to overwhelming public opinion against the project. I'm not saying I completely buy into the sensitivity argument myself, but it has to be seen as a valid reason to argue that the imam should consider moving his project.

    Exactly...

    As I pointed out in the FTP comments, the sensitivity argument (while being an emotional argument) is nonetheless a valid argument.

    Personally, I see no contradiction at all. Even if the media read him wrong, President Obama forcefully changed the entire framing of the debate, and in a very healthy direction -- and he did so without interjecting himself into the raging public-opinion debate about whether the project was "proper" or not. He showed true presidential leadership, and political courage. And now that he has done so, the debate will continue, but it will hopefully continue on a much different level than before.

    Personally, I believe that the argument NEVER was about the government stopping the construction of the mosque. Once the Landmark Committee made it's recommendation, there was nothing that legally could be done..

    Which is why I believe Obama's remarks were completely non-sequitur and were made at great expense to the Democratic Party...

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    And you are flat out wrong to say that the building in question here was “hit by one of the planes ... which killed 3,000 people in the biggest attack on the United States.” I suspect that this was a simple error in typing on your part or maybe its just hard to keep all of your baseless statements straight.

    Ex-Squeeze me??? Baking Powder??

    Can you name an attack on the US that was bigger as far as casualties go??

    If you are going to be engaged in tossing around innuendos about the significance of ‘Cordoba House’ or where the funding is coming from, then you might want to consider providing some evidence to back up your statements. Otherwise, you do serious damage to your already waning credibility.

    Evidence has already been provided back when this subject first came up.. :D But I'll be happy to again, show you the link..

    "We must remember that a practice associated with conquering Islamic armies was the construction of a mosque at the location where their triumphant battle was won. Thus, this modern Islamic organization is seeking to build a mosque at the site of 9/11 attack—an attack which was carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers who considered their mission holy war."
    http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/127499.html

    CW,

    OK, here's a question for you. What do you think about the mosque that already exists 4 blocks from Ground Zero? Think it should be allowed to continue its existence? What about Muslims praying in the Pentagon? That OK with you?

    Since those mosques were built prior to the attacks, they can not be construed as a Cordoba sign of conquest. Hence, I would have no problem with them..

    Here's a hypothetical: if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that every dollar spent was in no way connected to terrorists, would your feelings on the mosque be the same, or would you be OK with it?

    The sensitivity issue would still be a valid issue, as you point out.. Personally, I would be less inclined to be against it, but I still would feel it's a bad idea...

    Now, let me turn it around..

    If it is shown that there is a good possibility that the funding IS from terrorists and the developers STILL refuse to totally open their books so that a determination could be made, would you still support the building of the Cordoba Mosque??

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I pointed out in the FTP comments, the sensitivity argument (while being an emotional argument) is nonetheless a valid argument.

    I stand corrected..

    I pointed out the sensitivity argument in the Conservative Mosque Hypocrisy commentary, which I believe was your first foray into this issue....

    "As I said above, I don't have a problem with a Mosque being built in proximity to Ground Zero.

    I really don't..

    But I DO understand why some people WOULD have a problem with it. And their concerns and feelings about are legitimate..

    Of course, there are those (on BOTH sides of the issue) who are using the issue to further an agenda.. THey can go pound salt, as far as I am concerned.

    But there ARE legitimate concerns that people have. Emotional concerns to be sure, but legitimate nonetheless..

    Let me put it this way (again). :D

    How would ya'all feel about a Mosque at Ground Zero, if it was September 21, 2001???"
    -Michale, 4 Aug 2010, 0430hrs

    You will note that this statement was made long before Obama's non-sequitur remarks...

    Once the Landmark Committee made it's ruling, the argument has NEVER been about whether or not the Cordoba Group CAN build their Cordoba Mosque.

    The argument has been about whether or not they SHOULD build the Cordoba Mosque..

    This is what makes Obama's foray into the discussion so utterly and completely illogical..

    It's like, after a big long discussion of torturing terrorists where you take the CON and I take the PRO, you say to me, "Michale, we really SHOULD torture terrorists to gain valuable intel"....

    I would be, like, "Yea, that's what I have been saying the whole time, CW"...... :D

    I have to go with CB on this. Obama's remarks took advantage of the Iftar dinner and he was trying to score some political points by simply re-iterating to everyone what everyone already knew...

    But he frak'ed it up and came across as if he was totally supporting the Cordoba Mosque. Hence he had to backpedal and state that he WASN'T supporting the Cordoba Mosque.

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Harry Reid starts siding with Sarah Palin, it means that a big political boo-boo has been made, not that some masterful, crafty strategy is being rolled by Obama.

    I have to also agree with CB on this as well...

    When you have Reid, Angle and Palin on one side of an issue and Obama and Hamas on the OTHER side of the issue, something is seriously frak'ed up....

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
    -Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

    Get that??

    The US is partially to blame for the 9/11 terror attacks.

    And THIS is the face of the Cordoba Mosque...

    I know I was on record as saying that I didn't really oppose the Cordoba Mosque..

    Based on all the research I have done, I think I am now leaning that way.

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting....

    President Obama seems all gung ho to get behind the Cordoba Mosque..

    Wonder why he is not so gung ho to get behind the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

    http://directionstoorthodoxy.org/n/st_nicholas_greek_orthodox_churchs_troubles_typify_ground_zero_d.html

    Seems like there is trouble in getting any kind of building going near ground zero.

    Must be nice for the Cordoba Group to have the President Of The United States speak up for them...

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Ex-Squeeze me??? Baking Powder??

    Can you name an attack on the US that was bigger as far as casualties go??

    Maybe you should go bace and read again what I quoted and, pay particular attention to "building in question" ie, the future Cordoba House.

    AS for the rest of it, I would just caution you to think carefully before you start making a habit out of defending people around here who have no credibility. I wouldnT want any of that crap to rub off on you ... and, I mean that sincerely, Michale.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    AS for the rest of it, I would just caution you to think carefully before you start making a habit out of defending people around here who have no credibility. I wouldnT want any of that crap to rub off on you ... and, I mean that sincerely, Michale.

    I calls em as I sees em...

    If CB makes a good point (which she does, often) I'll state such. Just as when you make a good point, I acknowledge that as well...

    If you find some flaw in the reasoning, by all means, point it out...

    I am always amiable to changing my opinion if the facts warrant it...

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
    -Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

    Get that??

    The US is partially to blame for the 9/11 terror attacks.

    He's also repeatedly refused to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, despite this country's State Department having designated them as such. "Moderate," my foot. This guy is a "moderate" only according to the liberal press.

  23. [23] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Must be nice for the Cordoba Group to have the President Of The United States speak up for them...

    Let's not forget Hamas. They're equally concerned about the Iman's "constitutional rights."

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's not forget Hamas. They're equally concerned about the Iman's "constitutional rights."

    I had meant to mention that as well...

    Liz, CW, Kevin... Anyone???

    Why would you consider this Rauf guy as "moderate"???

    I would think that refusing to recognize Hamas as a terrorist group would be a huge tip off that Feisal Rauf is ANYTHING but "moderate"...

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Seems like there is trouble in getting any kind of building going near ground zero.

    It's "who you know" on Bloomberg's assorted hand-picked commissions. "Cordoba" House fast-tracked right through, despite the C.B. having "initiated a process of pursuing landmark status" for the Burlington building BEFORE 9/11 had even occurred.
    http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/Executed-LPC-Submission_20100720.pdf

  26. [26] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    >>>When you have Reid, Angle and Palin on one side of an issue and Obama and Hamas on the OTHER side of the issue, something is seriously frak'ed up....>>>

    Word has it that Rahm Emanuel has spent the last two days talking campaigning Dems "down from the ledge," as they say. Not only has Obama's remarks forced the likes of Harry Reid to decide between standing with Palin/Angle or Obama/Hamas but now a whole new controversy is reemerging over the al Qaeda Mastermind trial — the one this administrations was going to showcase "at the foot of the attack." (They seem to be real drawn to that "foot.") And now the 9/11 families are not only recounting Obama's insensitivity to them throughout THAT whole debacle but demanding to know why these terrorists haven't even been charged yet. Seems the administration, according to reports, is holding off on that until AFTER the election.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting article here on the Dem Mosque split..

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/17/reid-obama-mosque-moves-divide-democrats

    Ya see, this is what I can't understand..

    WHY would Obama put this out in the wild now??

    It seems that, whenever Obama puts his 2 cents out there on any given issue, Obama seems to be on the WRONG side of the majority of Americans...

    Only 2 possibilities...

    One.. He woke up that morning and said, "Ya know.. Frak politics.. I am going to just say what's right. What I feel."

    Two.. He is doing his damndest to frak things up for Democrats this November..

    As much as I hate to Conspiracy Monger, #2 is becoming more and more likely....

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    OK, here's a question for you. What do you think about the mosque that already exists 4 blocks from Ground Zero?

    I think it was built well before 9/11 and, therefore, has no controversy surrounding it, which makes its comaprison to the "Cordoba" House apples-and-elephants.

    Think it should be allowed to continue its existence?

    Of course it should. Why shouldn't it? As hard as the Left struggles to make this out to be about "religious" intolerance on the part of the Right, it's not. Try "terrorist" intolerance: something I'd like to see this administration show a little more of, instead of tripping all over its Kumbaya self every time they hear the word "Muslim."

    We have a genuine problem with terrorist organizations funneling money into this country to fund its efforts to TAKE THIS COUNTRY DOWN, Chris. And if this grand mosque is being built as as a shrine, THAT'S empowering to the enemy.

    What about Muslims praying in the Pentagon? That OK with you? Just curious as to your answers on those questions.

    Are they praying in a mosque built at the foot of the location where the plane nosedived into the building? If not, you're asking another apples-and-elephants question. And, again, you're trying to make this about religious freedom instead of this president's responsibility to know if the enemy is erecting a victory/conquest shrine, which would be wholly demoralizing to the Americans he's supposed to be protecting and defending, and INCREDIBLY empowering to jihadists all over this planet. Those warring Muslims didn't build symbolic mosques at the foot of conquered regions for nothing, I'll remind you.

    Here's a hypothetical: if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that every dollar spent was in no way connected to terrorists, would your feelings on the mosque be the same, or would you be OK with it?

    I'll never be okay with the gross insensitivity being shown the 9/11 families by this "wound-healing" Imam, who's in the process of emotionally torturing these poor people.

    But yeah: I'll be okay with the LEGAL funding of the mosque. I'll be MORE okay with the building being declared an historic landmark, since not exactly every building down there had the landing gear of one of the planes come crashing through its roof. The process of declaring the Burlington building had also already been initiated by the C.B. BEFORE 9/11 had even gone down, based on the building's architecture alone. But that kinda sorta all changed, rather abruptly, when the anything-but-moderate Iman started waving $100M-construction plans under construction-happy Bloomberg's nose.

    My turn: In your mind, is it at all possible that some of this $100M funding could be coming from terrorist organizations? Because, if so, somebody needs to examine the source of this money, as NY Rep. Peter King, who sits on the Homeland Committee, has been trying to do. Only he can't get word-one out of anybody — not from Homeland, not from State, not from Treasury, not from the White House, and not from this Imam. And I, for one, would like to know why no one in this government has been able to provide him with that information.

    Here's my guess as to why King can't get any answers: It's because the Imam is refusing to tell, and this administration isn't asking.

  29. [29] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    WHY would Obama put this out in the wild now??

    I'm thinking it's partially because he wasn't ready for prime time when he assumed the presidency, which he has yet to grow into it, as that article you'd earlier posted for me had mentioned, and which I have been saying for a long time. We have a president in the Oval Office who appears to be perpetually stuck in community-organizer mode.

    And, when you think about it, he didn't come into the presidency with a whole helluva lot of actual, practical "political office" experience under his belt. His entire career has consisted of winning one election and going right into campaigning for the next office.

    I'm no Hillary Clinton fan, but at least she was a Senate grunt for her first six years. Obama, OTOH, no sooner hits the U.S. Senate when he's very visibly back on the campaign trail, "organizing" the country instead of the community this time. And he doesn't seem to realize, even yet, that statements made by a campaigner don't have the same impact as when spoken by the leader of the free world and superpower.

    I don't know who, at the White House, thought that would be a GOOD speech to give at the Ramadan dinner, but I'll bet my life Rahm Emanuel wasn't one of them.

  30. [30] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Oh, here's a "need to read" for ya. Let's hear from a Muslim, shall we?

    A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?
    By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid

    [excerpt] The sides enthusiastic for building the mosque might be building companies, architect houses, or politicized groups that want suitable investments?! I do not know whether the building applicant wants a mosque whose aim is reconciliation, or he is an investor who wants quick profits. This is because the idea of the mosque specifically next to the destruction is not at all a clever deed. The last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery.

    What the US citizens do not understand is that the battle against the 11 September terrorists is a Muslim battle, and not theirs, and this battle still is ablaze in more than 20 Muslim countries. Some Muslims will consider that building a mosque on this site immortalizes and commemorates what was done by the terrorists who committed their crime in the name of Islam. I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine....
    http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=21980

  31. [31] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW- Just have to say another great read. This issue has been so muddled by the media that I wish everyone could read this.

    A couple other things I've found interesting about this whole story:

    1. A brief history lesson on the Cordoba Mosque
    http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

    2. Would this have gotten any notice at all if certain conservatives weren't trying to use it as a wedge issue?

    3. Isn't Al Qaeda the terrorists? Not Islam. This seems to me like holding all of Christianity responsible for the Son of Sam murders because the Son of Sam was a born again Christian. Or holding Iraq responsible for 9/11 ... oh, wait.

    4. There's also a mosque in the Pentagon. Should that not be there?

    But hey. What a great wedge issue. And I'm sure we haven't heard the end of trying to link Barack Hussein to terrorists.

    Everyone knows he hates America! :)
    -David

    p.s. CB, a small part you left out from your story:

    "The fact is that building a mosque next to the site of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, which were destroyed during the 11 September attacks, is a strange story. This is because the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!"

    Who is it important to then? Seems like the people who care the most about it are Republicans who want to use it politically.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, here's a "need to read" for ya. Let's hear from a Muslim, shall we?

    A very good point..

    In their haste and zeal to show everyone how tolerant and politically correct they are, did ANYONE on the Left ever stop to consider that maybe John P Muslim doesn't WANT a mosque 2 blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks???

    Michale....

  33. [33] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Two articles I'd like to toss into the fray:

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins/index.html

    Timeline of media reports. I love Laura Ingraham's quote: "I love what you're trying to do here."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081604681.html?hpid=topnews

    George Washington versus some of today's quotes.

    -CW

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Two articles I'd like to toss into the fray

    Reminds me of when the big black guy tossed a couple weapons into Taylor's and Brent's cell and watched them battle it out in BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES..

    :D

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Two things need to happen for this Cordoba Mosque to be acceptable.

    1) The funding process must be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY transparent to the public. Every dollar, every cent must be accounted for with a complete history of where it came from. NO question must remain as to where each and every cent is coming from.

    2) The Developers must meet with the families of 9/11 victims and enter into a frank and sincere discussion with them regarding the building of the Cordoba Mosque. Every reasonable effort must be made to accommodate those who lost loved ones on 9/11.

    Considering the circumstances, I don't believe that these are unreasonable steps at all.

    If the developers refuse these reasonable steps, then it would indicate that the claim that the Cordoba Mosque is for the purposes of building bridges and good will with other religions is so much crap and that there is a nastier ulterior motive at work..

    Michale.....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:
  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Bout time you showed up!! I have had to amuse myself by tormenting Sheve in the FRIENDS LIKE THIS commentary!! :D

    A brief history lesson on the Cordoba Mosque

    Which doesn't change the fact that it's a custom of Islam to build mosques in areas of conquest...

    Would this have gotten any notice at all if certain conservatives weren't trying to use it as a wedge issue?

    Are you saying that the feelings of the families of the victims of 9/11 shouldn't feel the way they feel???

    Regardless of how some want to pooh-pooh this away as a "conservative wedge" issue, the fact is there are very real sensitivity issues at play here...

    Isn't Al Qaeda the terrorists? Not Islam.

    Isn't Al Qaeda following the tenets of Islam?? Please don't try and convince me that Islam is a tolerant religion. Because we all know better..

    There's also a mosque in the Pentagon. Should that not be there?

    Was it built to commemorate the attack on the Pentagon?? No??? Straw-man...

    Who is it important to then? Seems like the people who care the most about it are Republicans who want to use it politically.

    And the developers who don't want to disclose funding and are doing everything in their power to tie the Cordoba Mosque to the 9/11 attacks...

    Glad yer back, David!! :D

    Michale.....

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy crap, I am on a ROLL!!!! :D

    Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?
    Opponents To Meet With Developers On Troubling Issue

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/17/paterson-king-hope-for-mosque-compromise/

    Michale.....

  39. [39] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  40. [40] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    David (Where ya been? Missed warring with you):

    The problem is, in order to give that impression of immediacy, Newt elides three hundred years of Christian and Muslim history. Three hundred years. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712.

    It's called "symbolism." Building "Cordoba" — of all names to select; like that was some kinda coincidence — and not only at the foot of GZ but with the building that had the landing gear of one the planes crash through its roof, is SYMBOLIC of the warring Muslims who built big mosques at the foot of regions they had conquered.

    2. Would this have gotten any notice at all if certain conservatives weren't trying to use it as a wedge issue?

    I get the funny feeling the 9/11 families were destined to notice. They've noticed a lot of things about this Imam. This woman, whose brother was one of the airline pilots of the plane that was torpedoed into the Pentagon, does a good job of explaining things:

    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/62ed2682414e47eb15e87bd48ce59c0c-199.html

    3. Isn't Al Qaeda the terrorists? Not Islam.

    Nobody's saying all Muslims are terrorists. Nice try, though. 'D

    4. There's also a mosque in the Pentagon. Should that not be there?

    Y'know, I see this "miss the point" tactic being employed by the Left a LOT. Was the mosque in the Pentagon built with undisclosed money from Arab nations? No? Then where's the comparison between that Pentagon mosque and "Cordoba" House, the $100M funding sources of which the Imam refuses to disclose? The same Imam who refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization.

    p.s. CB, a small part you left out from your story:
    "The fact is that building a mosque next to the site of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, which were destroyed during the 11 September attacks, is a strange story. This is because the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!"

    Yet this Imam feels the desperate need to "build bridges" in an area where Muslims and Catholics and Jews peacefully coexist every day. There was NO backlash against Muslim-Americans following 9/11. This country pulled together as a people and got back to business. So, yeah, the Imam's insistence that a "bridge be built" for people who've never had a problem with each other is pretty strange. I call that yet another red flag.

    Speaking of which, many red flags does this Iman have to wave in Liberals' faces before you guys wonder if maybe — just MAYBE — this guy is not on the up and up? For starters, would anybody like to know who's paying for this "Cordoba" House? I can't seem to get anybody to go near that subject.

  41. [41] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale-

    Just for the record. Me personally I find the story that Republicans are building about this mosque more interesting than whether or not the mosque should be built or not.

    There's so many contradictions and it's got all the good elements of a conspiracy theory.

    1. Build the story around innuendo and suspicion and fear. There's a secret Muslim plot and it involves the meaning of the word "Cordoba". Everyone knows how these Muslims are out to get us.

    2. The story lies dormant until the right right-winger finds that bringing back 9/11 can make some great politics. Connect the left w/ radical Islam. Connect the left w/ socialism. Connect the left with communism. Connect the left with former radicals like Bill Ayers. (see the pattern - the "left" is evil, vote Republican!)

    3. Villains and good guys. People with strange sounding names from other countries.

    It's interesting to watch. How these stories get built and believed is what really interests me.

    I say this because I'm not really interested in arguing about the mosque itself one way or another.

    One question: Why do Tea Partiers/"government stay out of my business" types want the government to interfere in a private property matter?

    It also strikes me that by the Tea Party's own standards, they would be against the Constitution as they are against the new Net Neutrality laws. The logic they are using is that the government should stay out of defining people's freedoms. Stop ... it hurts the brain ...

    -David

    P.s.
    There was NO backlash against Muslim-Americans following 9/11.

    Really, CB? Do you remember the term Islamofascism? There was a quite a bit of anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11.

    Nobody's saying all Muslims are terrorists.

    No. But people are going after an Islamic church when Al Qaeda bombed the WTC.

    It's like going after the Lutherans because of the Crusades. Unless, as Michale indicates, there's a belief that somehow Islam is linked to 9/11. So far there is no evidence to indicate that Al Qaeda has any ties to this church. Just innuendo, suspicion, and rumor.

    I love it! The silly season has returned.

  42. [42] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Just for the record. Me personally I find the story that Republicans are building about this mosque more interesting than whether or not the mosque should be built or not.

    There's so many contradictions and it's got all the good elements of a conspiracy theory.

    1. Build the story around innuendo and suspicion and fear.

    Nobody had to build the name "Cordoba" House. The anything-but-moderate Imam managed to come up with that one all by himself.

    That the Burlington building — with the unique distinction of having had the landing gear come through the roof — appears to be the ONLY site that will do for this guy, wasn't invented by anyone, either. He's turned down FREE property from the governor, which also isn't an invented story. Nor is the history of warring Muslims building conquest/victory mosques — y'know, like the one in CORDOBA.

    If an Imam in sheep's clothing were to build a symbolic victory mosque, I'd love to know what he'd have to do along the way to arouse the suspicions of my Liberal buddies. 'D

  43. [43] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Really, CB? Do you remember the term Islamofascism?

    Pertaining to radical Islamists? Yeah, I do. Shocking as they may seem to you, D, radical Islamists who would like to kill you — twice, if possible — really do exist. And Republicans aren't afraid to talk about them, describe them, AND educate the public about the stark difference between radicals and everyday peace-loving Muslims.

    There was a quite a bit of anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11.

    I recall a whole lot of baseless accusations by the Left against the Right. And I also remember fear on on the part of Muslims that they would bear the brunt of the terrorists actions. But I sure don't recall any of it materializing, save the handful of headcases who can always be counted upon in any society to pull something, locally. But, no, there was no anti-Muslim sentiment to speak of, save that manufactured by the Left, in their own heads.

  44. [44] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    No. But people are going after an Islamic church when Al Qaeda bombed the WTC.

    Nobody's "going after" anyone. People have questions that they would like answers to. Legitimate questions. Like who's paying for "Cordoba"; and why the name "Cordoba"; and why is this Imam, who's claiming to be a "moderate," refusing to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organizations; and from where, and whom, is this funding coming from.

    Like it or not, we've got terrorists INSIDE this country, D. And the only way to identify them BEFORE they, say, shoot up an army base while screaming "Allahu Akbar" at the top of their lungs is to recognize red flags and ask questions, or alert authorities, or whatever the circumstances warrant. Not every mosque builder/owner in this country is on the up and up. You remember these fellas, don'tcha?
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33894877/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

    Political correctness can not come before national security. We cannot ignore foul-play warning signs just BECAUSE somebody is Muslim. Because along with good, peace-loving Muslims, guess who's also Muslim: THE ENEMY.

  45. [45] 
    emh wrote:

    hey liz m, thanks for inviting me over from huffpost. i'm not going to say much here, as there is an ocean of uninformed, bigoted baloney that i'm not willing to spend my time wading through. i'll make 2 comments, though.

    1. if one is going to reference mosque building as a sign of conquest (a medieval practice - and i know because i'm a medievalist!), then we should also conflate modern day christianity with the crusaders. and then we can sit all day and take christianity apart based on practices and mores that are 500+ years old. that is precisely what talking about conquest mosques equates to. and that doesn't even address the fact that this building isn't even intended to be a mosque, but a community center.

    2. regarding the name, "cordoba:" that city was the intellectual center of early medieval europe, and the reason that its name is still evoked is this - muslims, jews and christians lived there in relative harmony and truly worked together and built an intellectually progressive, highly creative and utterly civilized society that has not been matched anywhere else throughout the centuries.
    cordoba was the first city in europe to have a university, it had paved streets with streetlights, the city had a library of around 500,000 volumes, when most urban centers could boast maybe a couple thousand books. maimonedes and averroes incubated the ideas that led to writings that still have great influence centuries later cordoba was known as "the new athens," and was the height of culture in medieval europe. scholars, philosophers, engineers, theologians (from all 3 great monotheistic religions), scholars of medicine, architects, artists, geographers, herbalists, cartographers - all of the important people whose work comprised the very building blocks that led to modern society - flocked to cordoba. i could literally go on for days about the multi-cultural achievements of cordoba. it's a place i wish i could travel back in time in order to experience. and it's an excellent choice for a cultural center in the main melting pot in america - new york city. it's just too bad that the aptness of the name is lost on probably 99.5% of americans who would rather repeat the rushbeckistan "mosques are built in conquered cities" junk history than to take 5 minutes to educate themselves.

    so please, enough with the a-historical rantings michaele, and chris whomever and the others who have been going on and on and on ad nauseam about things you very clearly don't understand. if you spent a little less time ranting and a little more looking into history, you might come up with more balanced and rational points of view.

    and that is all, lizm. thanks again for the invite over here! :)

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I see you fall back to the old Use-Sarcasm-So-As-Not-Have-To-Address-The-Facts plan...

    You do that a lot. :D

    The fact is, even CW admits that there are legitimate issues with the Cordoba Mosque.

    For someone who is always saying, "This is NOT a Right vs Left issue" you sure bash the Right a lot and ignore the facts of situations. :D

    emh,

    As I say to all JEEPs here....

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    And let me congratulate you on an excellent posting moniker. :D A fellow Trek geek, no??? :D

    then we should also conflate modern day christianity with the crusaders. and then we can sit all day and take christianity apart based on practices and mores that are 500+ years old. that is precisely what talking about conquest mosques equates to.

    I couldn't agree more.. Christian churches and Jewish synagogues SHOULD receive the same treatment as Muslim mosques...

    so please, enough with the a-historical rantings michaele, and chris whomever and the others who have been going on and on and on ad nauseam about things you very clearly don't understand. if you spent a little less time ranting and a little more looking into history, you might come up with more balanced and rational points of view.

    "We must remember that a practice associated with conquering Islamic armies was the construction of a mosque at the location where their triumphant battle was won. Thus, this modern Islamic organization is seeking to build a mosque at the site of 9/11 attack—an attack which was carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers who considered their mission holy war."
    http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/127499.html

    No amount of illogical discourse can cover up the facts, emh.. (as an aside, I have to say how fun it is to converse with the EMH :D)

    The term "Cordoba" has special significance in Islam that westerners do not get. For westerners, it's a place where cultures lived in harmony. For Islam, it's one of their finest and most enduring conquests..

    Regardless of the Cordoba tie-in, since you are here, perhaps you can address some other issues that the Cordoba Mosque presents.

    For example, why the face of the Cordoba Group, Feisel Rauf, has stated that the US shares responsibility for the 9/11 attacks?

    Why Rauf will not concede that Hamas is a terrorist group.

    These are not the attitudes of a "moderate" Muslim...

    Why such secrecy regarding the funding?? Surely full disclosure won't be a problem, IF the intent of the Cordoba Mosque is to build bridges, no??

    Finally, what are your thoughts on the sensitivity issue? Do you think the families of the victims of the Islamic terrorists are wrong in that they feel an Islamic mosque so close to the site of the attack would be wrong?

    You may or may not have a valid point with the "Cordoba" issue.. That's merely a matter of opinion with no right or wrong position.

    However, these other points are all valid as well.

    Wouldn't you agree??

    Again, welcome to CW.COM emh. Hope you stick around. :D

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nobody's "going after" anyone. People have questions that they would like answers to. Legitimate questions. Like who's paying for "Cordoba"; and why the name "Cordoba"; and why is this Imam, who's claiming to be a "moderate," refusing to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organizations; and from where, and whom, is this funding coming from.

    Like it or not, we've got terrorists INSIDE this country, D. And the only way to identify them BEFORE they, say, shoot up an army base while screaming "Allahu Akbar" at the top of their lungs is to recognize red flags and ask questions, or alert authorities, or whatever the circumstances warrant. Not every mosque builder/owner in this country is on the up and up. You remember these fellas, don'tcha?
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33894877/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

    Political correctness can not come before national security. We cannot ignore foul-play warning signs just BECAUSE somebody is Muslim. Because along with good, peace-loving Muslims, guess who's also Muslim: THE ENEMY.

    Remember above when I said that I acknowledge good points, no matter where they come from??

    These are more good points..

    Which is why they won't be addressed.. :D

    Kudos, CB.. You nailed it...

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    There was a quite a bit of anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11.

    I am also constrained to point out there was also a lot of anti-USA sentiment after 9/11 as well.

    Don't you recall all the pictures of Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11??

    As far as all Muslims being the enemy?? Intellectually, everyone knows that..

    But it's also indisputable that, outside the United States, amongst the rank-and-file Muslims, the view that the US is the enemy is pretty much the norm rather than the exception.

    Besides, it's human nature. During WWII, all Germans were "the enemy" even though there were Germans who were not.

    Look what our government (a Democratic Party government, if I recall correctly) did to Japanese Americans?? All Japanese were "the enemy"..

    So, given this history, it's logical to expect that John Q Public would instinctively view all Muslims as "the enemy" even when, intellectually, he knows it's not true..

    Yea, it would be nice if we would grow up past this point. Intellectually, we have.. But our instincts have yet to catch up...

    Irregardless, when the Left holds up the likes of Feisel Rauf as an example of a "moderate" Muslim, you can see why the Right simply scoffs at the concept of a "moderate" Muslim..

    While it's undeniable that there ARE "moderate" Muslims, Rauf is about the poorest example of such.

    Michale.....

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I knew you and emh would hit it off!

    :)

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone with the name EMH just HAS to be a great person!! :D

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    And there’s this, from Iraqi-American columnist Khudhayr Taher’s article in the Arab online liberal daily Elaph.com, May 18, 2010:

    "...Choosing the name 'Cordoba House' for the mosque to be constructed in New York was not coincidental or random and innocent. It bears within it significance and dreams of expansion and invasion [into the territory] of the other, [while] striving to change his religion and to subjugate him..."

  52. [52] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    While it's undeniable that there ARE "moderate" Muslims, Rauf is about the poorest example of such.

    I've seen a number of "moderate" Muslims on pundit shows over the past couple of days, coming out against this "Cordoba" building. One is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser from the American Islamic Forum for Democracy:

    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/d92dbfe917f8e7e8868272e63a4b8a8d-200.html

    THAT'S a moderate; not this Rauf fraud in sheep's clothing, whom claims his mission is to build bridges and heal wounds, yet couldn't show more disregard for the emotions and wishes of the 9/11 families if he tried.

  53. [53] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Thank you emh! I knew if I waded around long enough I'd find a pony. And thanks, Elizabeth, for encouraging that intelligent, sensible post. David and emh give me hope for the sanity I hope is shared by the great majority of Americans. The shriekers sure do pile it on from their bunkers. I just wish they'd seal their doors and spare us the paranoia.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kevin,

    The shriekers sure do pile it on from their bunkers.

    Not wanting to piss on your parade, but you DO realize that, in every controversial issue that has come down the pipe the last few months, the "shriekers" are the majority of Americans..

    You DO realize that, right??

    This being the case, isn't it even SLIGHTLY possible that the "shriekers" have it right and you and EMH and Liz are on the wrong side of this issue??

    Isn't that possible??

    Michale.....

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww crap...

    Michale.....

    Michale.....

    Caffey:"Is this your signature?"
    Dawson:"Yes sir."
    Caffey:"Don't have to call me sir. Is this your signature?"
    Downey:"Sir, yes sir."
    Caffey:"Definitely don't have to do it twice in one sentence."

    -A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    These are more good points..

    Which is why they won't be addressed.. :D

    LOL. Yes, I've noticed the pattern. 'D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it's become obvious that "building bridges" is NOT the agenda of the Cordoba Mosque developers..

    Mosque Developer Rejects Meeting With Paterson
    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Mosque-Developer-Says-No-Meeting-Scheduled-With-Gov-100967889.html

    So much for "tolerance", eh??? :^/

    Doesn't seem to be much "tolerance" amongst the Cordoba Group for the feelings and sensitivities of the 9/11 families...

    Why am I not surprised??

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Decision Not to Rebuild Church Destroyed on 9/11 Surprises Greek Orthodox Leaders
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/leaders-disappointed-government-declares-deal-rebuild-ground-zero-church-dead/

    Build a brand spankin' new and completely UN-NEEDED Cordoba Mosque at the 9/11 Attack site???

    Full steam ahead!! Let's push it thru by hook or by crook...

    RE-build a Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on 9/11??

    Sorry, Charlie.... No can do....

    Michale.....

  59. [59] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Well, it's become obvious that "building bridges" is NOT the agenda of the Cordoba Mosque developers..

    Mosque Developer Rejects Meeting With Paterson...

    Yeah, they sure aren't open to letting go of that Burlington building, are they? Jeepers, you don't suppose that the "missile's" landing gear has anything to do with it...

    "Cordoba."

    The wheels from the hijacked plane.

    Funding from Arab nations.

    Hamas's wholehearted support for the project.

    Naaaaaaaaaah. All one big coinky-dink, is all.

  60. [60] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Pelosi, having it both ways:

    "I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center."
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/

    'D If nothing else, she's entertaining.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center."

    Fine..

    Once the funding for the Cordoba Mosque is completely and 100% transparent, then I am willing to admit that CB is paying me to attack the Mosque.. :D

    Oh wait.. I am not really attacking the Cordoba Mosque... I just want some questions answered..

    Along with 64% of Americans...

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    But what an interesting precedent this sets, eh???

    Speak out against ANY pet project of the President and/or his administration and risk being "investigated"...

    I wonder if the Left will want to hold onto this precedent when the GOP is back in control of Congress and there is a GOP president elected in 2012??

    Somehow, I kinda doubt it.... :D

    Michale.....

  63. [63] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Speak out against ANY pet project of the President and/or his administration and risk being "investigated"...

    So much for "constitutional rights," like that free speech thingie. Can't wait for Obama to weigh in on this one. I'll hold my breath.

  64. [64] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Once the funding for the Cordoba Mosque is completely and 100% transparent, then I am willing to admit that CB is paying me to attack the Mosque.. :D

    Ix-nay revealing the aster-may an-play, comrade.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ix-nay revealing the aster-may an-play, comrade.

    "I don't care who you are, that right thar was funny as hell, I tell yooo waat."
    -Larry The Cable Guy

    :D

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I love one GOP aide's response to Pelosi:

    "If the speaker needs help finding the heart of the 'GOP GZM Conspiracy,' I urge her to ask Sasquatch. His office is behind the black helicopter hangar between the unicorn pen and the leprechaun's pot of gold."

    Regardless of your stance on the Cordoba Mosque, you just HAVE to find that hilarious.... :D

    Michale.....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, well, well, well... What have we here???

    "The revelation that a public utility owns part of the site raises a whole host of new legal questions and requires the involvement of a new public agency and possibly additional public hearings. That, coupled with the Landmarks Commission's procedural violations and deviations from administrative precedent, only strengthens our legal challenge,"
    -Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice.

    Looks like the "Private Property" is not so private after all, eh??

    "Just a fly in the ointment, Hans... A monkey in the wrench."
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I love one GOP aide's response to Pelosi:

    "If the speaker needs help finding the heart of the 'GOP GZM Conspiracy,' I urge her to ask Sasquatch. His office is behind the black helicopter hangar between the unicorn pen and the leprechaun's pot of gold."

    ROFL! Nancy was begging for that one.

  69. [69] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "The revelation that a public utility owns part of the site...

    Oh, here we go. Expect a lot of this stuff to start coming out. Bloomberg (whose polls have dropped 14 points since he made his speech) could give a damn about "constitutional rights." This is all about him and his hand-picked commissions getting a 13-story construction job for the city.

    Where he thinks he's gonna find a CONSTRUCTION WORKER ALIVE to build this mosque, I have no idea. The union bosses are probably all for it, but the construction guys, themselves, sure as hell are not.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the developers keep pushing things and being utterly intolerant to the 9/11 families and everyday Americans, it's unlikely that the mosque will ever be built.

    If the developers were to become a little more flexible and work WITH the families and be a little more transparent, they will likely get their mosque. Just not where they want it.

    As I said above, if the developers refuse to be tolerant and respectful, it's a pretty good indication that there are ulterior motives at play here..

    Michale.....

  71. [71] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    If the developers were to become a little more flexible and work WITH the families and be a little more transparent, they will likely get their mosque.

    Something tells me these "Cordoba" folks want "transparency" like your average crime family wants their hangout bugged.

  72. [72] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Well, insinuating himself into the mosque controversy sure did work out well for Obama. He's now achieved an all NEW low-low approval rating of 41% with Gallup.

    Two more points and this president is in the 30's, people. In the first-half of his first term. I'm not smelling a second term.

  73. [73] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    President Barack Obama said Wednesday he had “no regrets” about stepping into the controversy surrounding plans to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) backed away from her earlier call for an investigation into who was funding its opponents.
    http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/obama-has-no-regrets-about-mosque-stance-dpgonc-20100818-fc_9236886

    'D

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats who are on the same side of this issue as HAMAS should heed the wise old saying,

    "It's better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought of as a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

    This is the gift that keeps on giving.. To the Right...

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh HELL NO...

    Islamic Center Backers Won't Rule Out Taking Funds from Saudi Arabia, Iran
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/islamic-center-backers-rule-taking-funds-saudi-arabia/story?id=11429998

    I really don't have a problem with SA.. They are our allies, after all..

    But Iran???

    I have to believe that this is a "throw away"... Something the developers can "give up" to show how "reasonable" they are being.

    ANY support from would (and SHOULD) dry up if Iran has their pennies in the pot....

    Michale.....

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrrrr

    I hate it when I forget to close my attributes...

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the PLUS side....

    Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism..

    Any funds from Iran constitute terrorist funds for the Cordoba Mosque..

    Kiss the Cordoba Mosque goodbye...

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I really don't have a problem with SA.. They are our allies, after all..

    Not all of them. How many of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis?

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not all of them. How many of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis?

    15...

    Too be sure, not everyone in Saudi Arabia is our ally..

    But the government is and that's good enough for me. Of course, if groups within SA donate that have terrorist ties, well then all bets are off...

    But I don't have a problem with donations from the Saudi government beyond having a problem with ANY foreign meddling in our domestic affairs..

    But Iran is a whole kettle of fish of another color...

    Michale.....

  81. [81] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    But the government is and that's good enough for me. Of course, if groups within SA donate that have terrorist ties, well then all bets are off...

    Well, that is the question, isn't it? Whose Saudi money is this guy going after? The good Saudis, or the hijacker-sympathizers. From his "Cordoba" name selection, I have a pretty good idea.

  82. [82] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    But Iran is a whole kettle of fish of another color...

    Did you see this one?

    Iran's secret pipeline into the U.S.
    http://wtop.com/?nid=25&pid=0&sid=2029721&page=2

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi's Preposterous Pontificating On the Ground Zero Mosque
    "There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some,” Ms. Pelosi said in comments captured by Kerry Picket of the Washington Times’ Water Cooler blog. “And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque is being funded."

    Nobody is "funding" Bonnie McEneaney’s opposition. Her husband Eamon worked for the firm Cantor Fitzgerald, the name that brings back haunting memories of people plunging to their deaths from the inferno that was the World Trade Center on September 11. That firm was on the 105th floor of a building that once dominated the New York skyline.

    Contrast her words with Pelosi’s during an event in the Speaker’s home town of San Francisco:

    “How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.”

    Nobody “ginned up” Bonnie McEneaney and to even suggest so is repulsive. Ms. Pelosi’s tin ear – heretofore only understood to be a problem for her on domestic and economic issues such as jobs, taxes and health care – now puts her in the same extreme, delusional camp as those who suggest the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/18/penny-nance-nancy-pelosi-speaker-ground-zero-mosque-victims-families-muslim/

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some,” Ms. Pelosi said...

    ...while, herself, pouring gasoline on the political fire.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    ...while, herself, pouring gasoline on the political fire.

    Thereby proving the previously stated adage of opening one's mouth being a fool and removing all doubt.

    :D

    Michale......

  86. [86] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale & CB,

    This is all really quite entertaining.

    I'd comment more but the two of you don't seem to need anyone else. And, as I mentioned, the conspiracy story is much more interesting to me than the fate of the community center (FYR- my personal opinion is it's more of a local issue).

    I do appreciate the updates though. It keeps everything in one place and saves me from having to click on certain sites I'd rather not give the clicks to.

    It's interesting to me that there is one thing Pelosi and those talking up the community center's links to terrorism have in common:

    - No evidence

    Both Pelosi and the anti-ground-zero folks are doing little but speculating.

    Interesting twist. Very entertaining.

    BTW- Whatever happened to the link between Obama and the Russian spies. Could we work the Russian spies into this somehow?

    Now back to your regularly scheduled program :)

    -David

  87. [87] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I'd comment more but the two of you don't seem to need anyone else.

    It's sounding a little more to me like you just got your debate hat handed to ya, D.

    'D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Both Pelosi and the anti-ground-zero folks are doing little but speculating.

    The difference is that those who are against the Cordoba Mosque has plenty of, apparently, irrefutable evidence.. At least no one has been able to refute it...

    The only thing Pelosi has is that 64% of Americans are on one side of the issue and her, Obama and Hamas are on the other side of the issue...

    With stats and facts like that, it's no wonder you want to punt.. :D

    Michale.....

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    To be sure, not everyone in Saudi Arabia is our ally..

    But the government is and that's good enough for me.

    Oh, Michale ... have I got an eye-opening read for you!

    Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Its Soul For Saudi Crude ... by Robert Baer

    Read it and be prepared to eat your words about the House of Saud.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Read it and be prepared to eat your words about the House of Saud.

    Sounds like you and CB are in complete agreement on Saudi Arabia....

    I think hell just froze over and there goes a flying pig... :D

    Michale....

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's make it real easy for ya'all..

    Does ANYONE have a quote from ANY Muslim within the US (Hamas doesn't count) that is not associated with the building or developing of the Cordoba Mosque who thinks that building the mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero is a good idea??

    Is there ANY support for the Cordoba Mosque within the Muslim community??

    I don't think there is..

    Which begs the question.

    WHY are the developers so adamant about building a mosque in THAT location..

    It certainly can't be to "build bridges" because bridges that WERE being built are now being destroyed left and right...

    So, why???

    Michale.....

  92. [92] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    <i<Does ANYONE have a quote from ANY Muslim within the US (Hamas doesn't count)

    ROFLMAO!

    WHY are the developers so adamant about building a mosque in THAT location..

    Hmmm... foot of terrorist attack + "Cordoba" + building hit by landing gear of martyrs' missile = Gee, I have no idea.

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I'm serious!

    Since 9/11, it has been clear to me that the US relationship with Saudi Arabia is a CENTRAL problem in the struggle against extremist islamists ... in many more ways than one.

    So, when you call that relationship one of allies working together on this, you are talking superficiality at its finest.

    I hope you grab that book writen by the for CIA field agent - you won't be sorry you did!

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Hmmm... foot of terrorist attack + "Cordoba" + building hit by landing gear of martyrs' missile = Gee, I have no idea.

    This morning, Guliani made the same point that I have been making since this discussion started..

    Towhit, this whole process has been CREATING strife and animosity, not bringing people together as is the alleged intent.

    Liz,

    I will try and obtain the book and read it.. :D

    Michale.....

  95. [95] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hahahah.

    We all seem to agree:
    - There's a Constitutional right to build the mosque
    - Technically this isn't a federal government issue and is a local zoning issue
    - There's a big difference between terrorists and Muslims
    - Building the mosque near ground zero is unpopular w/ many people

    So yes ... you have really handed it to me :)

    I also agree it's fine to argue against the center on sensitivity issues. But the supposed links to terrorism? No facts I can see - just suspicion and conspiracy theory.

    In this, CB & Michale, you stand on the side of Pelosi :). Probably a first.

    ... those who are against the Cordoba Mosque has plenty of, apparently, irrefutable evidence

    Where?

    - There's some speculation that the name "Cordoba" is symbolic of conquest
    - There's 1 or 2 quotes from the Imam that make him look bad
    - There's a quote from the leader of Hamas about building mosques
    - There's a quote that funding is coming from Muslim nations

    It's just as easy to
    - Interpret the name "Cordoba" as symbolic of Muslims, Christians and Jews living together in piece
    - Find quotes from the Imam that make him look good (there's lots more than make him look bad)
    - What do you expect the leader of Hamas to say? He's against mosques?
    - Not see any evidence of links to terrorists. It's suspicion first. Guilty until proven innocent.

    It might hold sway in the court of public opinion. But not in a court of law.

    In this manner, the story is very similar to the birther story. Lots of suspicion. No evidence. Thrown out of court.

    So yes. Republicans have hit on something that the majority of Americans agree with. And I'm sure we're going to hear more about it. As Michale does, they're going to try to link Democrats to terrorists.

    But facts linking the center to terrorism? When have facts ever gotten in the way of a good story :)

    Cheers
    -David

    p.s. Liz- We need Joe Biden! Remember "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" Giuliani. This is a lot of what's going on again.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    - Technically this isn't a federal government issue and is a local zoning issue

    No, there really isn't a zoning issue either.

    - There's a big difference between terrorists and Muslims

    We can agree that there is a difference..

    How BIG a difference is open to debate.

    Building the mosque near ground zero is unpopular w/ many people

    Accurate, but lacking in important detail. Building the Cordoba Mosque close to GZ is unpopular with the majority of Americans.

    I also agree it's fine to argue against the center on sensitivity issues.

    Common ground. A wonderful thing. :D The sensitivity issue is sufficient cause not to build the Cordoba Mosque at the chosen location. Especially in light of the fact that it isn't really even needed.

    But the supposed links to terrorism? No facts I can see - just suspicion and conspiracy theory.

    The Imam said he would accept donations from Iran. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.

    Link from the Cordoba Mosque to terrorism.... PROVEN beyond any doubt...

    - There's some speculation that the name "Cordoba" is symbolic of conquest

    No, it's not speculation. It's documented fact..

    - There's 1 or 2 quotes from the Imam that make him look bad

    If a guy stands up and says he is a child molester once or twice, then you would ALSO be right about "- There's 1 or 2 quotes from the Imam that make him look bad"

    It's not the FREQUENCY of the quotes that is damning. It's what the quotes say about the person that is damning...

    - There's a quote from the leader of Hamas about building mosques

    Again, lacking in detail. I am sensing a pattern here.. Why do the details bother you?? :D

    - There's a quote that funding is coming from Muslim nations

    Once again, lacking in detail.. Muslim nations of which one is a state sponsor of terrorism..

    Link proven...

    But facts linking the center to terrorism? When have facts ever gotten in the way of a good story :)

    Once the Cordoba Group stated that they would accept donations from Iran, the link to terrorism is proven beyond doubt...

    You might not LIKE the facts... But they are facts nonetheless...

    Michale.....

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    David,

    We could all use more Biden, all the time. :)

  98. [98] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    We all seem to agree:
    - There's a Constitutional right to build the mosque

    Nobody ever said there wasn't. That's been the Lefty's red herring from the get-go, thrown in to shift the focus and conversation away from the real issue: the APPROPRIATENESS of building it in that location.

    It's just as easy to
    - Interpret the name "Cordoba" as symbolic of Muslims, Christians and Jews living together in peace

    Yeah, it's extremely easy take it out of the context of this particular "Cordoba" mosque, being built at the foot of the HOLY WARRING jihadists' attack site. I don't know what you think you gain by doing that, however, because it doesn't change the fact that of all places to build this 13-story mosque, the foot of the jihadists' attack site was chosen. And of all names to give it, "Cordoba" was chosen. And of all buildings, the one that got hit with the landing gear of the holy warriors' "missile" was chosen; and of all Imams, one who refuses to acknowledge a State Department-listed terrorist organization as a terrorist organization is building it; and of all places to raise funds, Saudi Arabia — where about 15 of the 19 holy warriors hail from — is on the list.

    Take each of those OUT of context and you can easily argue your way around any one of them. Put them all together, however, and it raises major red flags — and red flags can't be ignored in this country, David. It's no state secret that mosques — no, not ALL of them — are used for indoctrination and recruitment, and serve as money-funneling centers. No law enforcement agency dispute that.

    And why anybody would even WANT to take those things out of context is another question entirely.

    As for "Cordoba," I'll tell you who DOESN'T perceive that name as a symbol of Muslims, Christians and Jews living together in peace: the holy warriors who declared war on us infidels, and committed an act of war against us, and with whom we're presently at war, with every last one of them seeking to kill your American, non-Shariah-compliant ass. And every single Imam well-knows that, including the great bridge-builder and wound-healer, who's presently ripping open the 9/11 families' wounds.

    Even if this Imam were thoroughly on the up and up, and his "Cordoba" was meant to stand as nothing more than a symbol of peace, love and Kumbaya, that's not the symbol terrorists would see. For them, "Cordoba" House would symbolize the classic mosque built at the foot of the regions WARRING MUSLIMS had conquered.

    And THAT'S a real part of this whole problem, too, D, because a symbol like that — grandly standing 13-stories tall at the foot of the 19 HOLY WARRIORS' monumentally successful attack site — is mega-empowering to every terrorist on the planet.

    What I would like to know is why Libs/Progs feel the need to roll their eyes and auto-dismiss anyone who dares to put those facts together and look at the picture they collectively paint. I swear, if law enforcement agencies were filled with nothing but Libs/Progs, this country would be heaven on earth for every criminal and his brother:

    "They found a bunch of human heads in this guy's freezer. Ya think we should take him in on suspicion of murder?"

    "So? Somebody else could have put those heads there."

    "He's the only guy who lives in the apartment."

    "So? A neighbor could have broken in and put them in his freezer."

    "He looks exactly like the the police artist sketch."

    "So? Lots of guys with blonde hair and blue eyes could have and an eight-inch scar running down the right side of their face, and a pierced ear, and a tattoo on their neck that says 'Machete Man.' Besides, that 'c' could be an 'o.' It looks an awful lot like an 'o' to me."

    "What about the blood all over his t-shirt?"

    "So? Who's to say he didn't cut himself shaving, just like he said?"

    "Y'know, ya make a lot of good points, there. Let's forget this guy and just keep looking. The Machete Killer can't evade us forever, after all. He's bound to get sloppy one of these days..."

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ignoring all the compelling evidence that links the Cordoba Mosque with terrorists and terrorism, the sensitivity and respect issue is sufficient to warrant moving the mosque to another location...

    Especially in light of the fact that 1) there is already a mosque that serves the area, a commercial area to begin with... and B) no one in the American Muslim community has spoken out in favor of the Cordoba Mosque. Matter of fact, many in the American Muslim community have spoken out AGAINST putting a mosque in the location...

    So there doesn't seem to be ANY reason to put the Cordoba Mosque in the specified location and to cause much hurt and pain to Americans who lost loved ones on 11 Sep 2001...

    Absolutely NO REASON whatsoever...

    Michale.....

  100. [100] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Ignoring all the compelling evidence that links the Cordoba Mosque with terrorists and terrorism, the sensitivity and respect issue is sufficient to warrant moving the mosque to another location...

    You said it. Y'know, lost in this whole "constitutional right to build" debate is the fact that it's damned difficult to get something built in NYC. And part of the approval process is a determinations of whether the building would be right for that part of the city. This Observer article hits on that. And the only people who seem to think this would be "right" for the city are lifelong liberal Bloomberg and his hand-picked commission, who've rocket-docketed this entire "project" through the system from the start:

    Developers who propose something out of scale or unexpected quickly see a rise in NIMBYism—Not In My Backyard, for those unfamiliar—as activists come out of the woodwork to find everything imaginable wrong with whatever condo tower or office building is planned for their neighborhood.

    These NIMBY fights are engrained in the DNA of New York, and our public process for allowing development, while not without its flaws, gives NIMBYism a role, and through its structure (approvals from the City Council and mayor-appointed City Planning Commission), it answers the question of whether a development is right for New York City or not."
    http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mosque-and-niybyism

  101. [101] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Towhit, this whole process has been CREATING strife and animosity, not bringing people together as is the alleged intent.

    This can also be viewed as yet another example of liberals just flat-out ignoring the will of the people and going for what they want, instead. HCR all over again, only with Bloomberg and his commissioners this time; 60-some-odd percent majority saying no; and the American people getting it forced upon them, regardless.

  102. [102] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CB/Michale,

    What do you think about this study conducted by Duke's Sanford Institute that concludes going to mosque can actually prevent radicalization?

    http://www.sanford.duke.edu/news/Schanzer_Kurzman_Moosa_Anti-Terror_Lessons.pdf

    As for your Cordoba conjecture, CB ... it's too bad you feel this way. But it's still conjecture.

    You could just as easily argue that what better place for a center on understanding as the site of the WTC bombings.

    Also, I'm curious about both your thoughts on the Murfreesboro Mosque in Tennessee? Do they have a right to have a mosque there? Or does this mean Muslims have conquered Tennessee?

    Cheers
    -David

  103. [103] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    As for your Cordoba conjecture, CB ... it's too bad you feel this way. But it's still conjecture.

    You could just as easily argue that what better place for a center on understanding as the site of the WTC bombings.

    Did you miss the whole part about how that would EMPOWER the HOLY WARRING enemy, because THEY would not be looking at it in the same way liberals would?

    We have to ask questions when questions arise, David. That's how we stop the next Major Hassan, and the next Times Square bomber, and how we discover the true plans of an Adnan Shukrijumah BEFORE he shares his wealth of knowledge with al Qaeda:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38588735/

    I'm not bothering to lay out all the things that arouse suspicion about this Imam again. There are so many red flags, it's ridiculous. Again, I would love to know what a Muslim would have to do to raise a Liberal eyebrow in this country. You're all so busy doing the politically correct thing, and intimidating society into not daring to speak against a Muslim, that's it's already become a threat to the safety and security of this country, i.e. Major Hasan. That guy sent up all sorts of warning signs, but nobody wanted to face the wrath that would inevitably befall them if they dared to point a finger at a Muslim. Well, guess what: The ENEMY is Muslim, too. And liberals need to wake up and start dealing with that fact of reality.

  104. [104] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Also, I'm curious about both your thoughts on the Murfreesboro Mosque in Tennessee? Do they have a right to have a mosque there? Or does this mean Muslims have conquered Tennessee?

    Are they seeking to build the mosque at the foot of a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 in Tennessee? If not, you either have an uncanny ability to completely miss the point or you're going out of your way to do it, D.

  105. [105] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    OK, forgive me if you've already answered this, but how do you square your convictions about the imam (all those "red flags") with the fact that he worked with the FBI and the State Dept. under Bush, and assumably was checked out quite thoroughly before either of these jobs?

    Either:

    (a) the FBI missed his terrorist-loving nature during the background check

    (b) he's been radicalized since his background check

    (c) background check was somehow not done

    Those are really the only options I can think of, but maybe there's another one, I dunno.

    Also, you keep saying "nobody" ever said that they shouldn't be allowed to build there, but this is nonsense. Guiliani said it, Gingrich implied it strongly, and I bet you can find a whole bunch of quotes from 9/11 families (like the one I provided) and other politicians which say exactly the same thing. Now, you can argue I'm wrong about Obama having anything to do with it -- maybe the argument changed after the zoning board ruled, but to state that nobody ever made this argument is just ridiculous.

    I should just let this thread die down (I think there's an auto-shutoff thingie after two weeks, not sure), but I do have to comment on those two particular points, because I'd like to hear your answer.

    -CW

  106. [106] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    OK, forgive me if you've already answered this, but how do you square your convictions about the imam (all those "red flags") with the fact that he worked with the FBI and the State Dept. under Bush, and assumably was checked out quite thoroughly before either of these jobs?

    You know the expression, "A wolf in sheep's clothing"? They don't wear sheeps's clothing for nothing. Expect somebody with longterm, sinister goals to be just about the nicest, most helpful, community-minded person you'll ever wanna meet. For obvious reasons.

    He was probably checked out as thoroughly by the FBI as Major Hassan was checked out by the army. That's another BIG problem with the overboard "political correctness" going on with respect to Muslims. It's got the very institutions that are supposed to be protecting us, going out of their way, instead, to protect the feelings of Muslims — some of whom are here to do their part in either take this country down, or taking it over, Shariah-style. Gee, that's ANOTHER thing this Imam was chatting about: incorporating Shariah law into our system.

    (a) the FBI missed his terrorist-loving nature during the background check

    (b) he's been radicalized since his background check

    (c) background check was somehow not done

    Those are really the only options I can think of, but maybe there's another one, I dunno.

    (d) background check was rubber-stamped.

    Also, you keep saying "nobody" ever said that they shouldn't be allowed to build there, but this is nonsense. Guiliani said it, Gingrich implied it strongly...

    Y'know, you've got yourself all hung up on this word "allowed," but that's what these commissions are set up to do: either allow or disallow a building project to go through:

    Developers who propose something out of scale or unexpected quickly see a rise in NIMBYism—Not In My Backyard, for those unfamiliar—as activists come out of the woodwork to find everything imaginable wrong with whatever condo tower or office building is planned for their neighborhood.

    These NIMBY fights are engrained in the DNA of New York, and our public process for allowing development, while not without its flaws, gives NIMBYism a role, and through its structure (approvals from the City Council and mayor-appointed City Planning Commission), it answers the question of whether a development is right for New York City or not. http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mosque-and-niybyism

    Stare at that last sentence for a minute. The vast majority of citizens are against this — in a 5-to-1 liberal city, mind you — yet it's nevertheless been deemed "right for New York City." It's HCR all over again, only with Bloomberg, this time, effectively telling the majority of citizens to sit down, shut up and get used to it.

    I don't know of these Giuliani quotes your referencing, but a LOT of people have been saying this shouldn't be "allowed" — by the commission — for a variety of reasons, including the argument that it isn't right for the city, for some of the most obvious reasons in the world, starting with the symbolism "Cordoba" House is gonna hold among proud jihadist holy warriors, worldwide. This thing is gonna be sitting two blocks away from al Qaeda's glorious victory site! The landing gear of the of the plane crashed through two floors of THIS Buslington building! Have we got enough "symbolism" going on, y'think?

    I should just let this thread die down ...

    I get the feeling the plug is gonna get pulled on this "Cordoba" House real soon, in which case I think you can expect this thread to explode all over again. Just don't be shutting it down before Michale and I get our chance to gloat. 'D

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    The two damning things about Rauf is A> He won't label Hamas as a terrorist group and B> He said that the US was partially to blame for the 9/11 attacks.

    These two statements simply cannot be explained or mitigated away.

    Michale.....

  108. [108] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Did you miss the whole part about how that would EMPOWER the HOLY WARRING enemy, because THEY would not be looking at it in the same way liberals would?

    I don't hear any Muslims talking or gloating about this. The only people I hear talking about this are conservative Americans. For political reasons. No one would ever have said "boo" if not for some conservative politicians and the American media.

    The mosque would have been built. No one would have known about it. End of story.

    "The fact is that building a mosque next to the site of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, which were destroyed during the 11 September attacks, is a strange story. This is because the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!"

    Are they seeking to build the mosque at the foot of a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 in Tennessee? If not, you either have an uncanny ability to completely miss the point or you're going out of your way to do it, D.

    The reason I bring it up CB is that there's a lot of opposition to this mosque as well. And it has nothing to do with the WTC.

    And there's no ground zero sensitivity argument.

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011847,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

    It's simply associating Muslims with terrorists. This seems to be a bit of a trend.

    He said that the US was partially to blame for the 9/11 attacks.

    What was his actual comment, Michale? And what was the context in which he said it?

    I'm guessing what he said was something along the lines of U.S. policies contributed to the radicalization of Muslims.

    And that's very similar to a popular view even many conservatives have. To quote Glenn Beck:

    "When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

    -David

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't hear any Muslims talking or gloating about this. The only people I hear talking about this are conservative Americans. For political reasons. No one would ever have said "boo" if not for some conservative politicians and the American media.

    Hamas is talking about it... You can bet that Al Qaeda is talking about it.

    American Muslims are talking about it. They don't want it.

    The 9/11 families are talking about it. They don't want it either..

    Ari Rutenberg over at The Daily Banter said that anyone who is against the Cordoba Mosque is an "asshole" including the 9/11 families..

    Would you agree with that assessment??

    Would you say that ANYONE who is opposed to the Cordoba Mosque is an "asshole" and/or has a political motivation??

    Or is it possible that there are people who are against it because they feel it is wrong. Is it possible that their feelings are as pure and legitimate as yours and mine are??

    And there's no ground zero sensitivity argument.

    youtube.com/watch?v=fIlCiX0LIqA

    None at all, eh???

    What was his actual comment, Michale? And what was the context in which he said it?

    I posted it verbatim and in context. But will do so again...

    In an interview with Ed Bradley..

    Bradley: And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America's foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.

    Faisal: it is a reaction against the US government politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.

    Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

    Faisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
    islamfortoday.com/60minutes.htm

    And that's very similar to a popular view even many conservatives have. To quote Glenn Beck:

    Fine..

    And how would the Left feel if Beck was the head of a committee that was going to build a Fundamentalist Church (the kind the McVeigh belonged to) a block away from the Alfred P Murrah building in Oklahoma City???

    The Left would go ballistic...

    As I said above, you can (and do) pooh-pooh away all the links to terrorism you want. But I DID notice how you didn't touch the Iran link. Smart move.. :D

    But it is undeniable that the building of a mosque in that location would cause thousands of Americans great pain and suffering..

    And for absolutely NO good reason..

    American Muslims don't want it there.

    Americans don't want it there..

    The only people who seem to want it there are the developers, Obama and Pelosi and terrorists...

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale....

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it also appears that the ONLY reason those on the Left want it there is so they can stick it to the Right and the country in general..

    I mean, look at it..

    The LEFT championing the cause of religious freedom??

    This, coming from the group that howls hysterically at every pine tree on Government property during December...

    Ya gotta love the irony of the Left championing the cause of religious freedom.. :D

    Michale.....

  111. [111] 
    akadjian wrote:

    None at all, eh???

    Whoa, Michale. Easy. I don't want you to have an aneurysm.

    I was talking about the mosque in Tennessee. People there don't want it either. But it's nowhere near the WTC. They just don't like Muslims.

    And no one's calling you an asshole. In fact, I think we pretty much all agreed that at least the sensitivity argument has some validity.

    This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it, but it's not a conspiracy theory about how Muslims are conquering America one mosque at a time.

    Faisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

    Again. I think this is pretty much the same thing Beck said. Deserved? No. But we were in bed with dictators and abandoned our principles.

    The only people who seem to want it there are the developers, Obama and Pelosi and terrorists.

    Linking Democrats to terrorists. You realize, of course, that you're only helping to support my claim that this is the real reason for all the noise?

    -David

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was talking about the mosque in Tennessee. People there don't want it either. But it's nowhere near the WTC.

    My mistake... Apologies...

    They just don't like Muslims.

    And many people just don't like Republicans... Such is the way things are...

    And no one's calling you an asshole.

    I didn't think you were referring to me, personally.. But you seemed to share the attitude of Mr Rutenberg. Glad to see I was wrong..

    For the record, I don't think Mr Rutenberg is a bad person. We had some really nice discussions.

    But I think he is dead wrong about the Cordoba Mosque and those who oppose it..

    In fact, I think we pretty much all agreed that at least the sensitivity argument has some validity.

    Agreed...

    It's the only true compelling argument.

    Don't get me wrong. The terrorist links ARE legitimate concerns. The statements by Rauf clearly show he is not a "moderate" any more than Glenn Beck is a "moderate"...

    The statements that they would take money from Iran is a clear cut statement of intent to accept money from terrorist organizations.

    That alone should sink the Cordoba Mosque, if there is any justice in the world.

    Again. I think this is pretty much the same thing Beck said. Deserved? No. But we were in bed with dictators and abandoned our principles.

    It's an attempt to mitigate or justify terrorism.

    You know how I feel about that, so I won't even bother rehashing old arguments. :D

    Oh, what the hell..

    NOTHING JUSTIFIES, EXCUSES, MITIGATES OR EXPLAINS AWAY, TERRORISM

    At the risk of a Godwin here, the US is no more responsible, partially or otherwise, for the 9/11 attacks than the Jews are responsible, partially or otherwise, for the Holocaust...

    Linking Democrats to terrorists. You realize, of course, that you're only helping to support my claim that this is the real reason for all the noise

    I merely stated a fact..

    The only people who apparently are for the building of the Cordoba Mosque are the developers, Obama/Pelosi and Hamas...

    If you know of any others, we can lump them in there as well...

    If Pelosi and Obama don't like to be linked with Hamas, then perhaps they should re-examine their position vis a vis the Cordoba Mosque...

    Michale.....

  113. [113] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hahahahah. I had to look up Godwin because I hadn't heard that before.

    Now I'm dying.

    For anyone who hasn't seen this, here's Godwin's law:

    As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

    For the record, I don't think you're at risk of being compared to a Nazi.

    So I'll emphasize, again, that what's important to me is distinguishing between terrorists and Muslims.

    I'm with you that nothing justifies terrorist acts. But I also believe nothing justifies blaming all of Islam for the actions of the terrorists. And I see this happening in places like Tennessee. And in wars like Iraq. This only creates leads to more hate.

    -David

    p.s. I truly want to get into the terrorism overall subject. But I'm resisting because we've been there before and because now, of Godwin's law. :) Thank you for giving me my laugh of the morning!

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Looks like you were prophetic once again.... :D

    "A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero.

    "It's a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground," said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuild the World Trade Center site.

    "I wouldn't work there, especially after I found out about what the imam said about U.S. policy being responsible for 9/11," Kaiser said.

    The grass-roots movement is gaining momentum on the Internet. One construction worker created the "Hard Hat Pledge" on his blog and asked others to vow not to work on the project if it stays on Park Place."
    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_we_wont_build_it_hardhats_say_no_way_they_will_work_on_wtc_mosque.html#ixzz0x9a9AddU

    Michale.....

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Hahahahah. I had to look up Godwin because I hadn't heard that before.

    You never heard of a Godwin!???

    What kind of computer/internet geek are you!!!??? :D

    So I'll emphasize, again, that what's important to me is distinguishing between terrorists and Muslims.

    I completely agree...

    However, it is undeniable that there IS a link, a STRONG link between terrorists and Islam... Especially in the vicinity of Ground Zero..

    All emotionalism aside, this is fact..

    So, given this fact, why would anyone want to RUB that connection in the face of those who lost loved ones at the site??

    Because THAT is the ONLY purpose that the Cordoba Mosque will serve..

    To remind people, in the WORST way imaginable, that Islamic terrorists brutally murdered almost 3000 people...

    Once again, my Pearl Harbor example comes home to roost..

    It took almost FIFTY years for sentiment to die down sufficiently for a Japanese Cultural Center to be acceptable at Pearl..

    What do you think the outcry would have been if someone wanted to build it in 1950???

    Michale.....

  116. [116] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I don't hear any Muslims talking or gloating about this.

    Well, that's good, D. It means you're not hanging out with jihadists. They would be the folks who tend to gloat among THEMSELVES, not when the likes of you are standing within earshot. Jihadists tend to like to keep a low profile, and gloating in public sorta runs counter to that goal. I'm gonna take a wild guess that neighbors of the Time Square bomber didn't hear much coming out of him, either. Jihadists kinda like to "blend in" rather than "stand out" with gleeful statements about victory mosques, if ya know what I mean. It has to do with keeping their little missions S.E.C.R.E.T.

    And, no, I don't think this Imam is a terrorist with a secret plan to blow the country up. I think he's a terrorist sympathizer, working on Plan-B: to bring Shariah to this country. Nice and slooooooowly.

    The only people I hear talking about this are conservative Americans. For political reasons.

    Likely because you're predisposed to translating everything through a political filter and automatically dismissing whatever conservatives say. It's called being biased against conservatives.

    No one would ever have said "boo" if not for some conservative politicians and the American media.

    Unless ya count the thousands upon thousands of family members and friends of the victims of 9/11. You remember those folks, don'tcha? They're real sensitive about that big hole in the ground down there, particularly since human remains are still being found. YOU may have forgotten about the horror of it all, but there are an awful lot of NYers who haven't.

    It's simply associating Muslims with terrorists. This seems to be a bit of a trend.

    ...staging protests, claiming that it was too big (inflating it from a modest 6,800 square feet to a whopping 53,000 square feet)...

    It appears that Muslims are seeking to build a mega-complex in a little town, and it doesn't sound like the heart of the matter has to do with anti-Muslim sentiments:

    But if some people in Murfreesboro want the county to reject construction of the new mosque, they also wanted — and won — rejection of a proposed Bible theme park in the city. "It isn't about Islam or religion, it's about where they want to build," insists Kevin Fisher, an organizer of opposition to the mosque who says he also opposed the Bible park because developers wanted to build too close to a subdivision. Along with worries over increased traffic on a road he says is already too dangerous...

    So it's looks like you're the one who's assuming "It's simply [a matter of] associating Muslims with terrorists" and immediately leaping to the defense of the Muslims, as many a liberal has been trained to "politically correctly" do. Again, this "political correctness" is becoming a real problem in this country, because instead of reading and listening and thinking, liberals seem perched to immediately assume Muslims are being persecuted, and automatically rush to their defense. And the danger in that is, there are some Muslim who SHOULDN'T be automatically defended, but whose words and actions should be questioned. That's what concerns me about NO liberals questioning a whooooooooole lot of questionable things about this Imam Rauf, including his blame-America attitudes, his Hamas-sympathetic attitudes and his plans to raise funds for "Cordoba" in S.A., where 15 of the 19 jihadist hijackers hail from. Y'know, the ones whose landing gear crashed through the roof of none other than "Cordoba" House, as all coincidences would have it.

  117. [117] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "And then I saw that building," Mr. El-Gamal said, referring to 51 Park Place, the site of a former Burlington Coat Factory that was damaged during 9/11. "I never wanted anything so badly, and it took me four years to buy it."

    It's the "never wanted anything so badly" part that begs the question: why?

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's likely that, if the Cordoba Mosque does get built, it will always be known as the "Terrorist's Mosque" and it's likely only terrorists will go there...

    "The only people flying to the MidEast are terrorists!
    'Will you be sitting in ARMED or UN-ARMED??'
    'In case of cabin seizure, a small gun will fall from the ceiling panels. Grab it, run to the front of the plane and claim it in the name of Allah!!'

    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

    Intellectually, everyone knows that not all Muslims are terrorists...

    But it is undeniable that, if this Cordoba Mosque gets built, it will NEVER be a symbol of "bridge building"....

    It will always be a symbol of Islamic terrorism...

    This is the reality of the issue......

    Michale.....

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    So it's looks like you're the one who's assuming "It's simply [a matter of] associating Muslims with terrorists" and immediately leaping to the defense of the Muslims, as many a liberal has been trained to "politically correctly" do.

    Gotta admit..

    That's a good point.

    There ARE legitimate reasons NOT to build a mosque that have absolutely NOTHING to do with "thinking all Muslims are terrorists"...

    Just as there are legitimate reasons to be against Obama's policies that have absolutely NOTHING to do with racism...

    The Left always castigates the Right for always appealing to the lowest and muddiest denominator..

    I submit that the Left has the same problem....

    Michale....

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    From the above article...

    L.V. Spina, a Manhattan construction worker who created anti-mosque stickers that some workers are slapping on their hardhats, said he would "rather pick cans and bottles out of trash cans" than build the Islamic center near Ground Zero.

    "But if they moved it somewhere else, we would put up a prime building for these people," he said. "Hell, you could do it next to my house in Rockaway Beach, I would be fine with it. But I'm not fine with it where blood has been spilled."
    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_we_wont_build_it_hardhats_say_no_way_they_will_work_on_wtc_mosque.html#ixzz0x9s1zyZr

    By and large, that is the sentiment of the majority of Americans.....

    No one is objecting to a mosque...

    The only issue is the chosen location.

    It's like putting a McDonalds at Seminary Ridge in Gettysburg..

    Michale.....

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, so...

    We can ALL agree that not every Muslim is a terrorist.. And not every terrorist is a Muslim..

    We can further all agree that not everyone who opposes the Cordoba Mosque is an "asshole", is a bigot or is just spewing Right wing talking points..

    Sound right???

    Michale....

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    We need Joe Biden! Remember "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" Giuliani. This is a lot of what's going on again.

    I would rather have a noun, a verb and 9/11 than have Obama/Biden with their "a noun, a verb and it's all Bush's fault.." :D

    Michale....

  123. [123] 
    akadjian wrote:

    However, it is undeniable that there IS a link, a STRONG link between terrorists and Islam.

    No. There's not. There's lots of speculation and fear mongering though.

    It took almost FIFTY years for sentiment to die down sufficiently for a Japanese Cultural Center to be acceptable at Pearl.

    The difference is the Japanese attacked us and we went to war with the Japanese.

    Again, we are not at war with Islam.

    Likely because you're predisposed to translating everything through a political filter and automatically dismissing whatever conservatives say. It's called being biased against conservatives.

    Yeah, CB. That's me.

    Or maybe it's because of comments like:

    "This 'Islamic Center' is not part of a religious movement; it is a political movement designed to fracture the moral and political foundation of Middle Tennessee." - Lou Ann Zelenik, a politician seeking the nomination for Tennessee's sixth congressional district

    "We do not want Sharia Law in our country. It opposes everything our constitution stands for. This is a political ideology that is opposed to our constitution. We believe in religious freedom. But we are opposed to Sharia Law on our soil." Jay Heine, campaign manager

    "You could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, a way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it?" Ron Ramsey, Tennessee's lieutenant governor

    We can further all agree that not everyone who opposes the Cordoba Mosque is an "asshole", is a bigot or is just spewing Right wing talking points.

    Of course. I don't think anyone here said anything of the sort.

    What about people who oppose those who oppose the mosque? :)

    Are we all leftists or terrorists or "biased against conservatives"?

    Cheers
    David

  124. [124] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The difference is the Japanese attacked us and we went to war with the Japanese.
    Again, we are not at war with Islam.

    We're at war with Islamists. Radical Islamists, to be precise, but Islamists just the same. And they ain't wearing uniforms, like the Japanese were kind enough to do, David. That's why, as upsetting as it is for nice Islamics and nice Liberals like you, we still DO have to identify the radical Islamists mixed in with the good guys. That's done to protect innocent American civilians. Like you, for instance.

  125. [125] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Yeah, CB. That's me.

    Or maybe it's because of comments like:

    "This 'Islamic Center' is not part of a religious movement; it is a political movement designed to fracture the moral and political foundation of Middle Tennessee." - Lou Ann Zelenik, a politician seeking the nomination for Tennessee's sixth congressional district

    Hey, I've got news for you: Just like there's a terrorist faction of Islamists who are seeking to wipe this country off the face of the earth, there is also a dedicated, concerted effort by other Islamist factions to make America Shariah-compliant from the inside out. It's a longer, slower process, but a dedicated effort, nonetheless. And mosques and mosque-building are very much at the center of the plan. Not only do they want a mosque on as many corners as Starbuck's has coffee shops but mosques play a central, major role in INDOCTRINATING PEOPLE INTO SHARIAH-COMPLIANCE. So you'll have to forgive those Americans who do not want flat-out indoctrination efforts going on in their communities, with the ultimate goal of ending America's way of life. Peace-loving Muslims who want to worship? Fine. Islamists dedicated to transforming this free America? Not fine.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. There's not. There's lots of speculation and fear mongering though.

    I am completely taken aback and simply don't know how to respond to this complete and utter denial of reality...

    You are actually saying there is no link between Islam and terrorism..

    Seriously???

    The difference is the Japanese attacked us and we went to war with the Japanese.

    And Islamic terrorists attacked us and we went to war with Islamic Terrorists..

    We (or, to be more accurate the Democratic Party Government) also, in the 1940s, imprisoned thousands of Japanese Americans whose sole "crime" was having Japanese ancestors..

    So, tell me.. Honestly.. Is the fact that there is opposition to a Cordoba Mosque a mere 10 years after the most devastating attack on US soil, such a hard thing to comprehend??

    Again, we are not at war with Islam.

    No, we are not..

    And we weren't at war with ALL Japanese, either. Yet that didn't stop us from putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps.

    Regardless, it is undeniable that we are at war with those who use Islam as their justification..

    If Muslims outside of America would do more to police their own, maybe this problem wouldn't be of such magnitude, no??

    Instead, those Muslims are dancing in the streets ever time the US is attacked and are voting for terrorists as their representatives..

    You'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the persecution of those kinds of Muslims...

    What about people who oppose those who oppose the mosque? :)

    Are we all leftists or terrorists or "biased against conservatives"?

    Depends...

    Do you, like Pelosi, call for an investigation of any and all who oppose the Cordoba Mosque??

    Michale.....

  127. [127] 
    akadjian wrote:

    there is also a dedicated, concerted effort by other Islamist factions to make America Shariah-compliant from the inside out.

    *sigh*

    I was afraid that Shariah quote might lead you to the latest crazy "Muslims take over the U.S." theory.

    Here, I'll just point to the link CB so you don't have to post ...

    http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/08/morris-ground-zero-mosque---the-real-issue.php

    Interesting how the range keeps expanding past Ground Zero ... Now, according to Dick Morris and Frank Gaffney, it's 80% of Muslims who can be targeted.

    Do you see where this is headed folks?

    It's gone from one case to 80% of Muslims. Anyone want to bet on not being able to tell the difference between the 80% and 20% so it's really 100%?

    Still stand by your earlier position CB - "Nobody's saying all Muslims are terrorists." ?

    -David

    p.s. This is same Frank Gaffney who accused Grover Norquist (of all people) of having ties to radical Islamic groups. Norquist accused Gaffney of racial prejudice, religious bigotry and ethnic hatred. Hmm. This guy sounds real reliable. Grover effin' Norquist accused him of prejudice.

  128. [128] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You are actually saying there is no link between Islam and terrorism.

    Good lord. I am saying that there is no evidence of a link between the community center in NY and terrorism.

    Just a lot of speculation.

    And we weren't at war with ALL Japanese, either. Yet that didn't stop us from putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps.

    What does this have to do with your argument?

    Because we did it to the Japanese, we should do it to Muslims?

    No idea where you're going with this, Michale.

    Do you, like Pelosi, call for an investigation of any and all who oppose the Cordoba Mosque?

    I'm already on the record as saying this is just as ridiculous as the Islamic conspiracy theories.

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Good lord. I am saying that there is no evidence of a link between the community center in NY and terrorism.

    Ignoring for the moment there IS evidence to support the conclusion that there is a link between the Cordoba Group and terrorism(remember Iran?) that wasn't the question..

    The question was, is there a link between Islam and terrorism..

    Of course there is...

    Just like there is a link between Christianity and terrorism.. Remember Eric Rudolph??

    Regardless of how the terrorists pervert the religions, the link between the religions and that acts of terrorism is very real...

    What does this have to do with your argument?

    Because we did it to the Japanese, we should do it to Muslims?

    No idea where you're going with this, Michale.

    No, my point is that time must be allowed to heal the wounds of 9/11, just as time healed the wounds of Pearl Harbor..

    I am sure you would agree with me that it would have been inappropriate in the extreme to announce on 21 Sep 2001, that a mosque will be built close the site of the 9/11 attacks..

    Why?? Because it was too soon... Emotions and feelings were still high, still raw...

    The same argument can be made for the here and now..

    It's too soon...

    It took 46 years for a wounds of Pearl Harbor to heal sufficiently to allow a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl...

    And you think that 9 years is sufficient enough time??

    Based on what??

    I'm already on the record as saying this is just as ridiculous as the Islamic conspiracy theories.

    I must have missed that.. Not that it surprises me..

    For the most part, yer a pretty even-keeled kinda guy... :D

    Michale......

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I am struck how hilarious it is to see ya'all being the staunch defenders of religious freedom... :D

    Michale.....

  131. [131] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Interesting how the range keeps expanding past Ground Zero ... Now, according to Dick Morris and Frank Gaffney, it's 80% of Muslims who can be targeted.

    Classic liberal "fact." He's talking about mosques, not every Muslim who walks through the door.

    But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant -- terrorism.

    I haven't seen the research, but I wouldn't be surprised. Just because you keep your head neatly buried in the sand doesn't mean it's not going on, David. You're not gonna read it at the HuffPo, but mosques are, indeed, recruitment centers and a real problem for law enforcement agencies. That's just plain common knowledge at this point. And if you don't know that much, you need to start doing some reading instead of just automatically rushing to the defense of anyone who's Muslim.

  132. [132] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Looks like you were prophetic once again.... :D

    LOL. I'm a native NYer. I know exactly how the red-white-and-blue blue-collar crowd feels about all this. They lost as many family members, friends, associates, etc., as anyone else. Not only would they not show up to build this "Cordoba" House, they'd be pitching in their own money to open a Hooters next door to it.

  133. [133] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You're not gonna read it at the HuffPo, but mosques are, indeed, recruitment centers and a real problem for law enforcement agencies. That's just plain common knowledge at this point.

    Hahahahah. Why do you keep pulling the "liberal" card, CB?

    Seriously.

    If it's common knowledge, can you show me some evidence of a mosque in America being used as a recruitment center for terrorists?

    BTW- It's actually kind of funny that I'm ahead of you on the latest conservative conspiracy.

    I guess I must be on all the same conspiracy e-mail lists that you are CB. I'll be sure to keep you posted though.

    Classic liberal "fact." He's talking about mosques, not every Muslim who walks through the door.

    Is it a liberal "fact" or a fast-typing mistake? You got me CB. And you actually have some evidence for this point. I congratulate you. 80% of mosques.

    That still doesn't change the shift in position from talking about Ground Zero to finding a rationalization for targeting as many mosques as possible.

    I'm curious what you think about the research showing that mosques actually help reduce Islamic radicals. Any opinions on that?

    Or is that just silly science, not "common knowledge"?

    Cheers
    - David

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Not only would they not show up to build this "Cordoba" House, they'd be pitching in their own money to open a Hooters next door to it.

    I heard "HOOTERS" then what??? :D

    Count me in!!! :D

    Michale....

  135. [135] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    If it's common knowledge, can you show me some evidence of a mosque in America being used as a recruitment center for terrorists?

    You're not a big newspaper reader, are you? The FBI has been raiding and shutting down mosques in this country for years. The JD has also been convicting leaders and associates of such high-profile organizations as CAIR. And, no, I'm not gonna do your research for you. If you have any interest in learning about everything you evidently don't know about this major problem going on right here in your own country, you've got Google at your disposal. Start with bust and conviction of CAIR leader Ghassan Elashi and his two dedicated brothers.

    Aside from automatically rushing to the defense of any Muslim, no matter the circumstances, what I find most disturbing about liberals is how lightly they take the subject of terrorism and how helpful they are to radical Islamists, who are hard at work, attacking this country from within. And mosques — which are generally funded by Saudi princes — play a big, important indoctrination and money-funneling role.

    Start catching a clue, D: http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/d62bcf63d74279825e4059d4ab6c9767-211.html

  136. [136] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Another recent article:

    [excerpt]...In a recent survey by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy called “Mapping Sharia,” former FBI, CIA, and members of the U.S. military conducted undercover investigations of 2,300 mosques across America. Their findings were alarming.

    The study revealed that “Some of the 9/11 hijackers, in fact, received aid and counsel from one of the largest mosques in the Washington, D.C. area. Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center is one of the mosques identified by undercover investigators as a hive of terrorist activity and other extremism.” Interestingly, leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood currently run the Dar al-Hijrah mosque. Investigators concluded that Dar al-Hijrah's ultimate goal is to turn America into an Islamic state governed by Sharia law. Dar al-Hijrah is a perfect example of extremists cloaking treason in religious clothing.

    Hasan al-Bannain formed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 to spearhead the radical Islamist movement and its violent campaign against the West. Out of the Brotherhood were born al-Qaeda and Hamas. In a 1991 memo to the Brotherhood, radical Mohamed Akram explains that members “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” ....[continued]
    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/51e9acc36df635419fb7e002209de7a3-210.html

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that we have all had our Koom-Bye-Ya moment and we have all agreed that not all Muslims are terrorists, it's time to ask the next logical question.

    David, would you agree that some Muslims ARE terrorists??

    Michale.....

  138. [138] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    That still doesn't change the shift in position from talking about Ground Zero to finding a rationalization for targeting as many mosques as possible.

    Targeting? I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that the FBI shouldn't be investigating mosques with links to radical Islamic organizations and/or money coming in from them?

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    You seem to think it's unfair to target Muslim hangouts when searching for Muslim Terrorists..

    Where else would one find Muslim Terrorists?? In the Girl Scouts?? :D

    Michale.....

  140. [140] 
    akadjian wrote:

    David, would you agree that some Muslims ARE terrorists?

    Of course. But as you and CB have pointed out there is a big difference between the radical type of Islam they follow and Islam.

    Just like more radical forms of Christianity.

    In a recent survey by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy ...

    You're behind again, CB. Already told you about Frank Gaffney's organization. They sure do sound official, don't they? As if they're somehow associated with the government.

    Frank's the guy Grover Norquist thought was extreme. Grover Norquist. Look him up if you're not familiar. Not exactly a non-partisan study, eh?

    Still no comments though on the Duke/UNC research study showing mosques and community centers reduce the risk of radicalization?

    To prevent terrorism, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to look for the causes of radicalization, look at ways to prevent it, and then act on these recommendations.

    Call me crazy ... :)

    -David

  141. [141] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You're behind again, CB. Already told you about Frank Gaffney's organization. They sure do sound official, don't they? As if they're somehow associated with the government.

    They're a bunch of former government and military people, David. It's a D.C.-based think tank. Did you bother looking at Gaffney's resume?

    In April 1987, Mr. Gaffney was nominated by President Reagan to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations. He acted in that capacity for seven months during which time he was the Chairman of the prestigious High Level Group, NATO's senior politico-military committee. He also represented the Secretary of Defense in key U.S.-Soviet negotiations and ministerial meetings.

    From August 1983 until November 1987, Mr. Gaffney was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle.

    From February 1981 to August 1983, Mr. Gaffney was a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). And, in the latter 1970's, Mr. Gaffney served as an aide to the late Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (D-Washington) in the areas of defense and foreign policy.

    Then there's the military committee:

    The Center for Security Policy's Military Committee was founded in 1999 under the chairmanship of former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr.

    The new chairman, Admiral James "Ace" Lyons, Jr. is the former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, the largest single military command in the world. As an Officer of the U.S. Navy for thirty-six years, his initiatives contributed directly to the economic stability and humanitarian understanding in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions.

    Admiral Lyons is working with other members of the Committee - many of whom are among the foremost national security practitioners and thinkers of our time - to engage the military community, and those attentive to its views, as catalysts for renewing America's defense capabilities and adopting effective peace-through-strength policies to guide their use.

    Adm. James A. Lyons, Jr., USN (Ret.)
    Chairman
    Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet

    Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.)
    Chairman Emeritus
    Former Deputy Commanding General , U.S. Army, Pacific in Honolulu , Hawaii

    Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.)
    Chairman Emeritus
    Former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps

    Adm. Leon A. 'Bud' Edney, USN (Ret.)
    Vice Chairman Emeritus
    Former Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic

    Vice Adm. Al Burkhalter, Jr., USN (Ret.)
    Former Director, Intelligence Community Staff

    Lt. Gen. Frank Campbell, USAF (Ret.)
    Former Director, Force Structure, Resources and Assessment, Joint Chiefs of Staff

    Gen. J.B. Davis, USAF (Ret.)
    Former Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe , NATO

    And many more on the list. As for the group's advisory council:

    The Center's National Security Advisory Council (NSAC) was originally known as the CSP Board of Advisors. While the name has been changed, the organization's function has not: the NSAC serves as a key instrument for the networking, information sharing, paper production and recommendation dissemination that has been the Center for Security Policy raison d'etre. The NSAC has also afforded an invaluable sense of community for exemplary members of the security policy community who's robust views and proven judgment know no party lines.

    Council Members:

    Mark Albrecht, former Executive Secretary of the White House National Space Council.

    Morris Amitay, former Foreign Service Officer and legislative assistant in the House of Representatives.

    Bob Andrews, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict.

    William Ball, former Secretary of the Navy.

    Kathleen Bailey, former Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

    Robert Barker, former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy.

    And more. Not quite sure why I'm supposed to give a hoot about Grover Norquist, but whatever.

  142. [142] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    To prevent terrorism, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to look for the causes of radicalization, look at ways to prevent it

    Well, sure. We have all the time in the world to do that. After we conduct our little studies (which nobody has to, since we already know what the holy warriors want from us), what would you like to do then? Become Shariah compliant? 'Cause that's non-negotiable, on their end. We either convert or die. Which one would you like to choose?

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    After we conduct our little studies (which nobody has to, since we already know what the holy warriors want from us), what would you like to do then? Become Shariah compliant? 'Cause that's non-negotiable, on their end. We either convert or die. Which one would you like to choose?

    I'm afraid you have missed David's point ... entirely.

    Do you really not understand what preventing radicalization is all about?

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. Not when you are siding with al'Qaeda on the issue of the "ground zero mosque".

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Of course. But as you and CB have pointed out there is a big difference between the radical type of Islam they follow and Islam.

    Just like more radical forms of Christianity.

    Agreed..

    Yet, you cannot tell which groups of Muslims are radical and which groups are not just by looking at them..

    So you have to "target" the groups to determine that.

    It seems that your issue appears to be that you are against targeting of Muslim groups for investigation, JUST because they are Muslim groups.

    But, as I pointed out above, isn't it logical to do so??

    I realize that it is politically incorrect to investigate Muslim groups JUST because they are Muslims.. But, isn't it logical??

    As I also mentioned before, Political Correctness should take a back seat to public safety.

    The Ft Hood/Hasan incident should prove that beyond any doubt. While Hasan's attack wasn't a terrorist attack, it is undeniable that Hasan had terrorist sympathies.. And he NEVER would have been in a position to carry out his attack, if your type of "Can't target Muslims because they are Muslims" attitude hadn't been prevalent..

    Let me put it another way..

    If cops are looking for a bald fat guy who committed a crime, it's not a violation of my rights if they detain me even if I am innocent. :D

    Since it is undeniable that MANY Muslims are terrorists, it is only logical that Muslims would be targeted for investigation.

    And I would think that American Muslims would WELCOME that.. So much better to weed out those who are defiling their religion...

    As far as the "reventing radicalization" issue goes..

    Still no comments though on the Duke/UNC research study showing mosques and community centers reduce the risk of radicalization?

    To prevent terrorism, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to look for the causes of radicalization, look at ways to prevent it, and then act on these recommendations.

    Call me crazy ... :)

    OK, yer crazy.. :D (I'se aim to please... :D)

    I would like to read the study if you have a link. Yes, I am too lazy to GOOGLE.. :D

    But, it's been my experience that preventing "radicalization" is tantamount to appeasement and surrender and, to be honest, smacks of extortion.

    Achmed Q Muslim: "Do what WE want you to do or else we will cut your head off or blow up your buildings"

    The number one thing that experts cite as the "reason" for terrorist attacks against the US is our support of Israel..

    And THAT will never change. So any attempt to prevent radicalization will fail before it's even attempted.

    But, you do bring up an interesting point..

    How far are you willing to go to "prevent radicalization"??

    Will you forgo all alcohol?? Liz, will you were a hajiib??

    Because these are some of the things that MUST be done to appease the terrorists.. Even then, you would probably still get your heads lopped off..

    With most terrorists, terrorism is an end unto itself... This being the case, there isn't ANYTHING you can do to prevent radicalization.

    If the US gave EVERYTHING that Al Qaeda wanted, became a Sharia state and full Muslim religion was implemented, do you think Al Qaeda would just quit?? Would go home and say, "OK, NOW we can all be friends."??

    Of course not. Because there will ALWAYS be something that terrorists can use as an excuse..

    It's WHY they are terrorists...

    Strife and chaos and unfair treatment do not breed terrorism.

    Terrorism breeds strife and chaos and unfair treatment...

    Michale....

    Michale.....

  145. [145] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The Ft Hood/Hasan incident should prove that beyond any doubt. While Hasan's attack wasn't a terrorist attack, it is undeniable that Hasan had terrorist sympathies.. And he NEVER would have been in a position to carry out his attack, if your type of "Can't target Muslims because they are Muslims" attitude hadn't been prevalent..

    That's a perfect example of public safety/national security taking a back seat to political correctness.

  146. [146] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    But, you do bring up an interesting point..

    How far are you willing to go to "prevent radicalization"??

    Will you forgo all alcohol?? Liz, will you were a hajiib??

    How about "honor killings"? Everybody cool with that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5yHUfw89cc&feature=related

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a perfect example of public safety/national security taking a back seat to political correctness.

    Troo dat...

    How about "honor killings"? Everybody cool with that?

    Perhaps we could list some things that the US might do to "prevent radicalization" of Muslims...

    Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler?? :D

    Or is it just slightly possible that US actions have little or no effect on whether or not terrorists are created??

    Michale....

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not so much that Political Correctness trumps Public Safety..

    It's really a problem that Political Correctness trumps common sense.

    Here is a perfect example..

    You have a rape and murder committed in a white neighborhood at 0300hrs. The ONLY description that the cops have is a black male.

    6 blocks away, a black male is detained...

    Now, is it racist to detain that black male SOLELY because he is black??

    Of course not. It's good police work AND common sense that says detain that black male..

    Just as it would be good police work and common sense if the rape/murder was committed by a white male in a black neighborhood and a white male was detained 6 blocks away..

    Enforcement action based on race is NOT racism if race is all you have to go on.

    Michale.....

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Or is it just slightly possible that US actions have little or no effect on whether or not terrorists are created?

    Actually, if you really want to know what had the biggest impact on creating al'Qaeda, then you need look no further than the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia over the last several decades.

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, CB!

    But, you do bring up an interesting point..

    How far are you willing to go to "prevent radicalization"? Will you forgo all alcohol?? Liz, will you were a hajiib?? How about "honor killings"? Everybody cool with that?

    Well, I'm not exactly sure what all of that has to do with what the west needs to do to prevent radicalization.

    It seems to me that we first have to recognize that there is a war WITHIN Islam, between the forces of modernization and religious harmony - Imam Rauf, for example - and the forces of extremism - al Qaeda, for example. We need to encourage the forces of modernization and not stand opposed to them as many of the opponents of the "ground zero mosque" seem so wont to do.

    Of course, as I mentioned in response to Michale, if you really want to get at the root of Islamic extremism, then you really need to carefully examine the US relationship with the House of Saud.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I agree with you completely that there is a war within Islam..

    However, I would point out that many of Rauf's statements align him WITH Al Qaeda rather than opposite Al Qaeda...

    Michale.....

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    However, I would point out that many of Rauf's statements align him WITH Al Qaeda rather than opposite Al Qaeda...

    al-Qaeda would beg to differ.

  153. [153] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Dang, y'all are still at it?

    OK, I've got a technical question for everyone who sees this comment.

    When I did the site upgrade, I noticed a new feature that I didn't implement -- paginating comments. This would mean you'd see pages of comments if the total number got big enough. HuffPost, for instance, puts up pages of 25 comments.

    When I was doing the programming, I thought "most of my comment threads aren't long enough to justify the work it would take to do this." Now I'm not so sure.

    So, with 152 comments here (and counting), what do you think of the idea? I'd lean toward longer individual pages (50 comments?), but I'm thinking it might be better to have pages rather than these endless-scroll-down comment threads. If I went with 50, we'd be just beginning the 4th page here, for instance. I would likely keep the "FIFO" display (comments go from oldest down to newest), so to see the most recent comments you'd have to check out the last page.

    Anyway, what does everyone think? Even if you love the idea, it may take me months to get it ready and up and running, I caution. But let me know, one way or the other.

    Thanks.

    -CW

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    al-Qaeda would beg to differ.

    I honestly doubt it...

    CW,

    Just my personal taste, but I LIKE having everything on one page..

    For example, using YOUR example of us being on the 4th page, I would have to scroll back 4 pages to get back to the main CW page.. yea, I know.. You could have a HOME link that would take me right back, but still...

    I like it all on one page, even if it's a gazillion lines long..

    Just my opinion...

    Michale.....

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I think pages would be good but 50 comments per page would be far better than 25.

    Also, and Michale will like this, you might consider allowing an option that shows all pages ...

    1,2,3,4,5,6 ALL

    You must be well on your way to 100K comments by now! You'll have to keep us posted on that. :)

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, and Michale will like this, you might consider allowing an option that shows all pages ...

    1,2,3,4,5,6 ALL

    When the lady is right, the lady is right... :D

    Michale.....

  157. [157] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW--
    I hate to agree w/ Michale :), but I kind of like everything on one page as well. Salon uses pages and I hate the additional navigation.
    -David

    p.s.
    Of course. But as you and CB have pointed out there is a big difference between the radical type of Islam they follow and Islam.

    Just like more radical forms of Christianity.

    Agreed..

    Yet, you cannot tell which groups of Muslims are radical and which groups are not just by looking at them..

    So you have to "target" the groups to determine that.

    Then why not target Christians too, Michale? I believe it was you yourself who brought up Tim McVeigh and fundamentalism. Why aren't we targeting Christians?

    Come to think of it, you can't tell terrorists just by their religion, so wouldn't we technically have to investigate everyone? What about the Irish? What about the Israelis? What about the Quebecois? Then we can lock up everyone who can't prove themselves innocent!!!

    (FTR- You know I don't really believe this. But it does show the flaw in logic when you take something to its absurd extreme.)

    Link to the Duke Study
    http://www.sanford.duke.edu/news/Schanzer_Kurzman_Moosa_Anti-Terror_Lessons.pdf

  158. [158] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Well, heck, "doing nothing" ALWAYS gets my vote.

    This is because of deeply held beliefs in the power of laziness. Ahem.

    I just thought this would be a good column to test people's reaction, but if the mega-scrolling isn't bugging anybody, then I'm fine with leaving things the way they are. Any pro-pagination types out there?

    Now head over to today's column, to see a fun little survey...

    -CW

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Then why not target Christians too, Michale? I believe it was you yourself who brought up Tim McVeigh and fundamentalism. Why aren't we targeting Christians?

    You don't think that Law Enforcement doesn't???

    Branch Davidians??

    Randy Weaver??

    Jonestown??

    Any of these ringing any bells??

    It's just that picking on the "poor" Muslims get's all the press from the Lefty types..

    That's why I think it is so ironically hilarious to see the Left so hysterical about religious freedom for Muslims when they actively STOP religious freedom from Christians...

    Winter Vacation instead of Christmas Vacation... Spring Break instead of Easter Vacation..

    Shall I go on???

    Michale.....

  160. [160] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Then why not target Christians too, Michale? I believe it was you yourself who brought up Tim McVeigh and fundamentalism. Why aren't we targeting Christians?

    What makes you think the FBI isn't targeting radical Christian groups? They target anyone who poses a threat to the United States, David. They just busted a "militia"-type group not too long ago, if that makes ya feel any better.

    Why the heck are you so resistant to radical Islamists in this country being targeted?

  161. [161] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wow. The conspiracy theory deepens. Now the "left" is responsible for Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver, and Jonestown. And for taking religious freedom from Christians.

    Is there anything the "left" can't do we're so evil and powerful? :)

    (Seriously, do you really believe any of this?)

  162. [162] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    (Seriously, do you really believe any of this?)

    Any of your creative spin? Not really. 'D

  163. [163] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Perhaps we could list some things that the US might do to "prevent radicalization" of Muslims...

    How about an "Okay, no more becoming radicalized, you guys" law? I'm quite sure they'll comply with it.

  164. [164] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CW, I'm an everything-on-one-page fan. 'D

  165. [165] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    David, check out the youtube clip in this article. And you might wanna read the article, too:

    http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/05/smoking-gun-holy-land-foundati.html

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Wow. The conspiracy theory deepens. Now the "left" is responsible for Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver, and Jonestown. And for taking religious freedom from Christians.

    I have NO idea what you are talking about.

    You implied that LEOs do not target Christian groups.

    I simply informed you that you are wrong and provided examples..

    Michale....

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for taking religious freedom from Christians.

    As for this, the claim is factual..

    Do I need to recount how many religious functions and activities are under attack from the Left??

    Not that it really matters to me. I am as agnostic as they come, both politically and religiously..

    But I call a spade a spade and it is undeniable that many on the Left do their utmost to pull religious aspects from Americans and their every day lives.

    These activities are especially acute around Christmas time. Or, as the Left would insist I say it, "The Holiday Season"... :D

    Michale.....

  168. [168] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Christian-bashing has been a favorite sport of the Left's for years. And, yes, removing religion from the town square; that's another big one. A MUSLIM'S religious rights are quite another story, mind you. How well the left has been trained, and if only they had a clue of how helpful they're being:

    http://www.chris11962.com/videos/videos/thirdjihad.html

  169. [169] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why the heck are you so resistant to radical Islamists in this country being targeted?

    I never said anything of the sort. Talk about spin.

    If there's evidence of terrorism, let's go after the terrorists. What I'm against is hyped up suspicion, innuendo, and paranoia being mistaken for evidence.

    Same thing I was against when we invaded Iraq.

    What I'm arguing is that in addition to going after proven terrorists, we need to win over the moderates. This is the same strategy Petraeus has adopted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar and Baghdad when you're drumming up fear and suspicion in NY?

    Cheers
    David

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    If there's evidence of terrorism, let's go after the terrorists. What I'm against is hyped up suspicion, innuendo, and paranoia being mistaken for evidence.

    Fair enough..

    But.....

    Considering what's at stake, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and public safety, rather than individual rights and liberties??

    I mean, when one possible outcome is the deaths of thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of innocent Americans, it seems to me that personal liberties should be WAY down on the list of priorities..

    You watch UNTHINKABLE yet???

    Michale.....

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar and Baghdad when you're drumming up fear and suspicion in NY?

    No one is drumming up fear and suspicion in NY at all.

    American Muslims (at least those not associated with Imam Rauf and the Cordoba Group) are as against the Cordoba Mosque as the rest of the country is...

    This is well documented..

    Michale.....

  172. [172] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar and Baghdad when you're drumming up fear and suspicion in NY?

    Our first and foremost responsibility is to protect this country by going after terrorists and fraudulent Muslim "leaders" in this country, not hearts and minds. Check out the 1:16 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbnaWpSS8Dk&feature=player_embedded#!

    "Moderate" Imams and Muslim leaders have turned out to be not so moderate after all. Quite a few have been charged with terrorism of one kind of another. That is why we have to question this Imam Rauf, whose words and actions are not jiving, starting with his refusal to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization.

  173. [173] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    If there's evidence of terrorism, let's go after the terrorists. What I'm against is hyped up suspicion, innuendo, and paranoia being mistaken for evidence.

    How do you know it's "being mistaken" when your first reaction is to simply and immediately leap to the defense of any Muslim whose intentions come under scrutiny. I think liberals really need to educate themselves better. It's like you're totally unaware that this problem of Imams and Muslim leaders posing as "moderates" has already been encountered, many times, with these guys ending up in jail. Yet liberals are right there the next time, dutifully crying "Islamophobia!" when the next suspicious Imam arises.

    Are you even aware of the manifesto that came out in the Texas trial? Here's my favorite section:

    4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

    The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The
    Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and
    destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their
    hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious
    over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and
    have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work
    wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that
    destiny except for those who chose to slack.

    You can download it here. There's a link at the end of the paragraph: http://www.chris11962.com/videos/videos/thirdjihad.html

    The English translation begins on page 16. Notice how helpful the politically correct Liberals have been to these fraudulent "moderates," giving them credibility, and elevating them in stature, and promptly having a Kumbya breakdown when anybody dares questions their intentions. Just like what's happening with Rauf and his CORDOBA House.

    I hear some more choice quotes of his are about to come out, about how the U.S. has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda.

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really quite simple, actually..

    If you treat someone as a threat and you are wrong, you can always apologize and hope they forgive you.

    If you treat someone as a friend and you are wrong, you (and probably many many other innocent people) are dead and then it's Game Over.

    Michale.....

  175. [175] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Is that anything like the ole 'one percent doctrine'? :)

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Is that anything like the ole 'one percent doctrine'? :)

    Very similar...

    It's how best to save innocent lives in a dangerous world where it's not so easy to do..

    "Because they stand on a wall, and they say `nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch!'"
    -Demi Moore, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale....

  177. [177] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Is that anything like the ole 'one percent doctrine'? :)

    Guilty until proven innocent.

    *sigh*

    It's how best to save innocent lives in a dangerous world where it's not so easy to do.

    I wish you'd quit trying to protect us, Michale. I don't want your protection. I personally would rather live in a free world, then in a world of the 1% doctrine. Because the 1% doctrine, basically means the government can investigate whoever they want, whenever they want, and come to whatever conclusions they want.

    This isn't the America I want. Nor our founding fathers. Hence, checks and balances and the Bill of Rights.

    I do know you mean well, Michale, and that's why I think we'd get along well until certain issues come up :), but don't you find it ironic at all when people fight to take away the freedoms they say they're fighting for?

    We ourselves are the ones taking away our freedoms, something no terrorist has managed to do.

    Ok ... we're at about the flash point where we've gone down this road before and have hit an impasse at liberty vs. safety.

    No one's used the word "nazi" yet, though, so that's a good sign :).

    Cheers
    David

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." - Ben Franklin

  178. [178] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. Chris & Michale-

    One thing you seem to forget is that disagreeing with U.S. policy does not make a terrorist. Neither does a non-acknowledgement of Hamas.

    To be a terrorist, I'll paraphrase a Michale definition here, you have to kill or plan on killing civilians to advance a political agenda.

    The way you seem to be using the word is to refer to people who don't always agree with U.S. policy on terrorism.

    That's not evidence of terrorism.

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." - Ben Franklin

    And we're back to asking what "essential" liberty have you given up?? :D

    One thing you seem to forget is that disagreeing with U.S. policy does not make a terrorist. Neither does a non-acknowledgement of Hamas.

    No, you are right. Failure to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization doesn't make one a terrorist..

    It simply makes one sympathetic to terrorists..

    Which is just as bad as being a terrorist...

    There is no "gray" area when it comes to terrorism..

    You are either with the terrorists or you are not with the terrorists...

    Which is it???

    Watch UNTHINKABLE... SERIOUSLY... I'll GIVE it to you, if necessary...

    THEN come back to me and say that personal liberty MUST be paramount...

    Michale.....

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Let me put it to you this way..

    Let's say that you want me to condemn torture and say it's evil and it's wrong...

    I refuse to do so...

    Wouldn't that lead you to believe that I have some sympathies for torture.. That I DON'T believe it's wrong??

    Now, I want Joe Blow to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization....

    Joe Blow refuses to do so...

    Doesn't the same "sympathies" argument apply??

    Michale.....

  181. [181] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Guilty until proven innocent.

    *sigh*

    In this country, which is (hello) AT WAR with terrorists — including terrorists inside our borders — and with a manifesto that surfaced during a terrorism trial, laying out the game plan to overthrow this nation from within, yes: a "moderate" who makes anything-but-moderate statements DOES have to start proving to us that he's on the up and up. We don't have to prove a damned thing to him. Because we, as a nation, have a history of unearthing and jailing "moderates" who turned out to be the enemy, instead.

    What part of that do liberals not get? And, again, WHAT would an up-to-no-good Imam have to do before a liberal even begins to question if the Imam's intentions are as noble as he claims?

  182. [182] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    One thing you seem to forget is that disagreeing with U.S. policy does not make a terrorist. Neither does a non-acknowledgement of Hamas.

    And what you seem to forget — or never knew in the first place — is that a pattern exists with these fraudulent moderate leaders, now in jail for terrorism. And one of them is a refusal to acknowledge that terrorists organizations as terrorist organizations, as demonstrated in the video I showed you.

    Yet, once again, here you are immediately trying to downplay the SAME pattern, present in the SAME statements made by Rauf, as a mere disagreement with U.S. policies. Well, DUH, yeah, terrorists seeking to overthrow this country DO have disagreements with this country's policies, David. That's one of your big tip-offs. That would be why they're seeking to conquer from the outside, through violence, and on the inside, through recruitment, indoctrination, and infiltration into this country's educational and political systems.

  183. [183] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    To be a terrorist, I'll paraphrase a Michale definition here, you have to kill or plan on killing civilians to advance a political agenda.

    Putting aside that we would rather not wait until people are already dead, what are the warning signs that a high-profile Muslim leader may not be who and what he presents himself as? What's the M.O.. of a fraudulent "moderate"?

  184. [184] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    don't you find it ironic at all when people fight to take away the freedoms they say they're fighting for?

    Don't look now, but that's exactly what fraudulent Imams and Muslim leaders are quietly and covertly in the process of doing — with a whole lot of help from kneejerk liberals, which is the most ironic part of it all.

  185. [185] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I wish you'd quit trying to protect us, Michale. I don't want your protection. I personally would rather live in a free world

    And the terrorists living within this country would rather you lived under Shariah law instead of the government our founders created, and they're seeking to make that happen, right under your nose and with your (albeit unknowing) cooperation. So, like it or not, the Michales of the country are going to protect you from being duped by these dedicated holy warriors, whose defense liberals are always so quick to rush to: no questions asked. Ever.

    Speaking of Shariah law: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/20/saudi.arabia.paralysis/index.html?iref=obnetwork

    This is the Islam religion we're supposed to, quite naturally, perceive as simply dreamy and wonderful.

  186. [186] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    See how astoundingly similar American law and Shariah law are, in the eyes of the ever-moderate Rauf? See how well they fit together, David?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmZ0Qmqn3Wo

    Why, one can hardly tell the two apart, when you really think hard about it, right? All men AND WOMEN are created equal, don'tcha know. Shariah law doesn't TREAT women equally, but, hey: listen to the good Imam anyway. He's just as "moderate" as the day is long. And he really seems to be well-intentioned, doesn't he?

  187. [187] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It simply makes one sympathetic to terrorists.

    Which is just as bad as being a terrorist.

    "When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems." -Glenn Beck

    So what would you say to Glenn Beck?

    Guess he's as bad as a terrorist because he's saying the same thing as Rauf, eh?

    What's the M.O.. of a fraudulent "moderate"?

    Well, according to Michale, I would be a fraudulent moderate or terrorist sympathizer because I hold some similar views on U.S. foreign policy. Me and Glenn Beck.

    The other standard you and Michale seem to believe in is that a terrorist is whoever some rightwing pundit thinks is a terrorist.

    As for my beliefs, I will restate them. I believe in evidence of terrorism or planned terrorism. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

    And this belief comes from the 5th and 6th amendments of our Constitution.

    There is no "gray" area when it comes to terrorism.

    Au contraire, Michale. I think there's a lot of gray area when it comes to even the term "terrorism". Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have been guilty of killing civilians towards a political end. Who are considered "terrorists"? Well, I suppose both could. Or, it could depend whose side you're on politically.

    And the terrorists living within this country would rather you lived under Shariah law instead of the government our founders created, and they're seeking to make that happen, right under your nose and with your (albeit unknowing) cooperation.

    Yes, yes. We know. It's the giant Muslim conspiracy to build mosques to deradicalize Muslims and then take over the country by voting! What we need to do is not allow them to reproduce because then we'll always outnumber them!!! Right under our non-Shariah law sniffing noses! :)

    -David

  188. [188] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Watch UNTHINKABLE... SERIOUSLY... I'll GIVE it to you, if necessary...

    THEN come back to me and say that personal liberty MUST be paramount...

    Watch Showtime's series "Sleeper Cell," David. That'll straighten ya right out.

  189. [189] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    That's not evidence of terrorism.

    It depends on what those statements are and who's saying them. And it IS evidence when sentiments shared by Hamas are coming out of the mouth of someone who's selling himself as a "moderate" to Americans, but refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist org. That is, indeed, evidence, David. This is the same exact pattern we've seen from PAST Muslim phonies, who've gained the same respect as Rauf by positioning themselves as moderate, peace-loving Muslims, only to find themselves in prison upon being BUSTED and having their manifesto come out in a court of law. Rauf is exhibiting all those classic signs.

    And here we now have Daisy Kahn now branding anyone who's against the GZ mosque as "Islamophobic." Bridge-building, my foot. Over 70% of New Yorkers and 68% of Americans nationwide are "Islamophobic" for daring to ask where the money for CORDOBA is coming from, and why Rauf, who positions himself as a "moderate," won't call Hamas a terrorist org, and why he and his anything-but-bridge-building wife don't give a hoot about the wishes of the 9/11 families. He's taken no fewer than five positions that are straight out of the manifesto, David.

  190. [190] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Well, according to Michale, I would be a fraudulent moderate or terrorist sympathizer because I hold some similar views on U.S. foreign policy.

    You believe America has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda? That's we're the ones responsible for Iraqi children starving to death, not Saddam?

  191. [191] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Guess he's as bad as a terrorist because he's saying the same thing as Rauf, eh?

    Not quite. Beck, like anyone else, recognizes and supports constitutional rights. Only that's never been a point of contention. Here's his stance, where he supports finding out about this Rauf guy, and he sure as hell does not support Rauf's contention that America has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda; nor does he hesitate to call Hamas a terrorist organization; nor does he contend that WE starved Iraqi children — all anti-American messages this fraud of an Imam is spreading while at the same time saying he's a moderate who's building bridges: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4307739/beck-the-moderate-imam-behind-ground-zero-mosque/

  192. [192] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Yes, yes. We know. It's the giant Muslim conspiracy to build mosques to deradicalize Muslims and then take over the country by voting! What we need to do is not allow them to reproduce because then we'll always outnumber them!!! Right under our non-Shariah law sniffing noses! :)

    And, once again, everything's just a big ol' joke to you. You didn't happen to bother to read the manifesto, didja, D? Y'know, the one that laid it all out in black and white:

    "The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and
    destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack."

    There's plenty more where that came from. But, by all means, just continue making jokes about it all, and rushing to the defense of any Muslim, no matter what, and with no questions asked. Instead, just attack anyone who dares to question them, for any reason. And just forget about that Grand Jihad thingie, because it's all so unpleasant, after all.

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    "When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems." -Glenn Beck

    So what would you say to Glenn Beck?

    Saying that something "causes problems" is a LONG way and a FAR cry from saying that the US partially deserved 9/11...

    Well, according to Michale, I would be a fraudulent moderate or terrorist sympathizer because I hold some similar views on U.S. foreign policy. Me and Glenn Beck.

    Well, we have established that Glenn Beck does NOT think that the US partially deserved 9/11..

    What say you??

    Do you, like Rauf, think that the US partially deserved 9/11??

    Au contraire, Michale. I think there's a lot of gray area when it comes to even the term "terrorism". Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have been guilty of killing civilians towards a political end. Who are considered "terrorists"? Well, I suppose both could. Or, it could depend whose side you're on politically.

    Sorry, David. But in this, you are as wrong as wrong can be..

    There is no "gray area" in terrorism. Period.

    It's like saying there is a "gray area" in child molestation. There isn't..

    Terrorism, like child molestation, is as black/white an issue as could possibly exist...

    Take your Palestinian/Israeli example.

    In it, you seem to think that Israel has killed innocent civilians for a political end. But, what you DON'T seem to realize is that it was Hamas who PLACED the vast majority of dead Palestinians deliberately in harm's way, for PR purposes..

    There is an old "joke" amongst CT operators in the region.

    When the attack sirens sound in Israel, the Israeli government rushes their civilians into shelters to protect them.

    When the attack sirens sound in Gaza, Hamas rushes their civilians to the target to reap PR rewards.

    You simple cannot compare the actions of the respective governments in the Palestinian/Israeli issue. It's like comparing apples and alligators.

    The problem here is that the Left thinks that everyone (except for the Right) is basically good and that bad people, like terrorists and child molesters, aren't really bad, but just misunderstood.

    But you are wrong. I am sorry, I don't know how to sugar coat it, but you are as wrong as wrong can be.

    There ARE bad people in this world. And to think that one can win over these bad people by being nice to them and giving them "rights" and "considerations" is almost a certain guarantee to disaster and loss of life on an unprecedented scale.

    Michale.....

  194. [194] 
    akadjian wrote:

    See how astoundingly similar American law and Shariah law are, in the eyes of the ever-moderate Rauf?

    Lol, CB. This was a good video of Rauf.

    Instead of escalating the tensions like so many on both sides seem to want to do, he's easing the tensions between the U.S. and Islam by showing how much we have in common.

    Do you disagree with any of the rights he talks about?

    1.The right to life
    2.The right to property
    3.The right to freedom of religion
    4.The right to family
    5.The right to mental well being

    If this is Shariah law, it sounds pretty good to me. I don't see anything terrorist about this.

    And he makes a nice joke about America being a "Shariah compliant state" ... did you hear the laughter?

    "It's a joke, son. Don't 'ya get it?" - Foghorn Leghorn

    I'm not sure why you want to escalate this into a holy war, CB.

    Do you, like Rauf, think that the US partially deserved 9/11??

    Rauf didn't say this. And neither have I.

    Here's what Rauf said:
    "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

    It's very similar to what Beck said. Our policies have caused problems.

    The people who are saying this are conservative pundits saying "Rauf said this".

    And as for your worldview, Michale. Yes, this is where we disagree.

    I believe the strategy to fight terrorism has 2 prongs:

    1) Go after the terrorists - the people for which there is actually evidence
    2) Win over the moderates and the vast majority of good people like Rauf has tried to do

    I believe that associating Islam with terrorism only escalates the tension and has the potential to generate recruits.

    -David

  195. [195] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Do you disagree with any of the rights he talks about?

    Are you not aware of the wholesale LACK of rights for women? Do you not know that women are stoned to death for being raped, for instance, unless they can produce four male witnesses of the rape, all of which must be Muslim? Shariah law is the OPPOSITE of our laws. Yet he's serving it up as something that would fit right in with American law. And you're sitting there, nodding in agreement. Like so:

    If this is Shariah law, it sounds pretty good to me.

    Yes, that's the point, David. It's supposed to sound good to you. And, in time, as they push harder and harder for America to incorporate Shariah law into America, you're supposed to be all for it and help the nice terrorists — y'know, the ones who want to take over the country, working from the inside — accomplish that.

    And he makes a nice joke about America being a "Shariah compliant state" ... did you hear the laughter?

    "It's a joke, son. Don't 'ya get it?" - Foghorn Leghorn

    Yeah, Raub must have only been joking. Yeah, that must be it. He couldn't possibly be busily conditioning Liberals to say, "If this is Shariah law, it sounds pretty good to me. I don't see anything terrorist about this."

  196. [196] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    See this, D? If you're against Sharia law coming to Oklahoma, you're a racist Islamaphobe:

    http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/6/5/ballot-to-ban-sharia-law-in-oklahoma.html

    Be sure to jump directly on that pro-Sharia bandwagon. It's sounds like such a nice law, after all, because Rauf made people smile over it.

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

    Let me analogize that statement.

    "I wouldn't say that the women deserved to be raped, but her policies of wearing short skirts and tight tops were an accessory to the crime that happened."

    Now, you say that to any woman and watch how fast you end up on the floor with a kick to the bollocks.... :D

    You see, that statement is a mitigational statement.. It is an attempt to mitigate or justify, however minutely, the act...

    Whether the act be a rape or a terrorist attack, there can be no "BUT" following the statement, "I wouldn't say that the United States/the woman deserved what happened."

    Because any "but" afterwards is simply mitigating or justifying, no matter how subtly or minutely the horrific act.

    I believe that associating Islam with terrorism only escalates the tension and has the potential to generate recruits.

    But there already IS an association between Islam and terrorists... Outside of the US, the association is a LOT closer than within the US..

    By NOT recognizing, acknowledging or being pro-active about the association, we run the risk of their being SUCCESSFUL Times Square bombings or a rash of Major Hasans.

    The Hasan incident is a PERFECT example, a TEXTBOOK example of what tragedy the Left's kind of "Prevent Radicalization Programs" brings about.

    Hasan's attack on Fort Hood is a DIRECT result of the exact kind of "outreach" that you propose..

    Michale.....

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Let me ask you this..

    If we addressed EVERY complaint, EVERY bitch and moan from the terrorists.....

    Do you think that they would just stop being terrorists??

    Michale.....

  199. [199] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If we addressed EVERY complaint, EVERY bitch and moan from the terrorists.
    Do you think that they would stop being terrorists?

    I don't think anyone said anything about addressing complaints from terrorists. This is what always confuses me so much about both you and Chris - I'm never sure where you're getting all these ideas.

    What the research shows is that moderate mosques and a strong sense of community can reduce terrorist recruiting.

    Again, the strategy I believe in includes two parts. The second part is: win over the moderates. Keep them from becoming terrorists.

    Hasan's attack on Fort Hood is a DIRECT result of the exact kind of "outreach" that you propose.

    C'mon Michale. Do you really have any evidence that his actions are the result of any type of outreach program?

    This guy is a guy who's unhinged. Someone who can't be won over. I'm not arguing for trying to win him over. I'm arguing for keeping the moderates from becoming terrorists. Part II of the strategy.

    I think Petraeus' strategy is very similarly two-pronged. And there's evidence that moderate influences can limit terrorist recruiting.

    Yet he's serving it up as something that would fit right in with American law.

    Rauf talked about his view of Shariah law. CB, you're talking about some extremist view. I'm not sure how this relates to Rauf. Once again, it looks like you're associating moderates with someone else's extremist view.

    Now CB. You've said on one hand, no one's saying all Muslims are terrorists. Yet on the other hand, you keep trying to associate moderates with terrorists by bringing up all kinds of scary scenarios of moderate Muslims trying to take over the U.S.

    It's getting harder and harder to give your arguments credibility when you keep contradicting yourself. And spouting more and more conspiracy theory about moderate Muslims wanting to take over the U.S.

    Cheers
    David

    p.s. Movies and TV are interesting, but I'd rather not base policy on them.

  200. [200] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Rauf talked about his view of Shariah law. CB, you're talking about some extremist view. I'm not sure how this relates to Rauf.

    I think you need to learn a bit more about Sharia law, D. It is, in and of itself, extremist. And Rauf supports it.

  201. [201] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Now CB. You've said on one hand, no one's saying all Muslims are terrorists. Yet on the other hand, you keep trying to associate moderates with terrorists by bringing up all kinds of scary scenarios of moderate Muslims trying to take over the U.S.

    Moderates aren't trying to do that. They're assimilating into American life and laws. Radicals are the ones who want Muslims in America to have Sharia courts (similar to the mess going on in the U.K.) And the fraudulent, so-called "moderate" Rauf supports it. Hence, his waxing poetic about how similar Sharia is to the Constitution, which is patently absurd on its face, given that women are anything but equal under Sharia, and not to mention, there isn't exactly a separation of church and state going on with Sharia. Sharia law applies to all aspects of Islamic life: religion, government and politics.

    Yet right away, there you are, immediately buying right into his utterly bogus description and comparison: no questions asked.

  202. [202] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Political Correctness and Sharia in Europe
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocU5x_03MDM&feature=related

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    What the research shows is that moderate mosques and a strong sense of community can reduce terrorist recruiting.

    OK.. Good.. Common ground again. :D

    But, look at all the evidence piling up that indicates the Cordoba Mosque would NOT be a "moderate" mosque..

    The chosen name "Cordoba".

    Statements of the Imam that fault US policies that makes the US an "accessory" to the 9/11 Attacks. Rauf's refusal to label HAMAS a terrorist group. Rauf's claim that the US has more blood on their hands then Al Qaeda.

    Rauf's wife's claims that extremists are watching this issue and she implies that New York will be attacked if the Cordoba Mosque isn't built.

    The leader of the developer group walks out of a news conference when asked if he will meet with the 9/11 families that oppose the Cordoba Mosque.

    These are NOT the statements and actions of "moderate" Muslims..

    C'mon Michale. Do you really have any evidence that his actions are the result of any type of outreach program?

    Have you read the AA reports??

    They show that there were MANY indications that Hasan was becoming a radicalized Muslim. But his superiors were afraid to take action because of the politically correct attitude fostered by the Obama Administration that said, "Hands Off Muslims!"

    So, yes.. The evidence clearly shows beyond ANY doubt that this sort of "outreach to Muslim" mentality directly contributed to the Hasan massacre.

    This guy is a guy who's unhinged. Someone who can't be won over. I'm not arguing for trying to win him over. I'm arguing for keeping the moderates from becoming terrorists. Part II of the strategy.

    There's no doubt that Hasan was a fruitcake... But, if the Obama administration hadn't pushed this "Outreach" mentality, Hasan would have been stopped long before he killed all those people.

    p.s. Movies and TV are interesting, but I'd rather not base policy on them.

    The nice thing about TV, Movies and other fiction is it allows us to examine possibilities without the tragic loss of life.. They allows us to challenge our pre-conceived notions (hint, hint) in an environment that is safe.

    9/11 was just a Tom Clancy book..... Until it wasn't.

    You can bet that UNTHINKABLE *has* happened, except not on the scale portrayed. You can also bet that UNTHINKABLE *will* happen just on that scale in the near future.

    If you watch it, you will see what I mean..

    Michale.....

  204. [204] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    My, my, my. Isn't this getting interesting:

    Following the Mosque Money Trail
    A closer look at controversial developer behind Ground Zero Islamic center.
    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/d18f41b1d62292eb9756932640176c38-252.html

    One minute Sharif el-Gamal is waiting tables. Next thing ya know, he's purchasing the Burlington building for $4.8M... cash.

  205. [205] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Watch UNTHINKABLE... SERIOUSLY... I'll GIVE it to you, if necessary...

    From the previews, it looks like season 2 of "24."

  206. [206] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    What the research shows is that moderate mosques and a strong sense of community can reduce terrorist recruiting.

    And who conducted this research?

    BTW, that's fine and dandy if, in fact, the mosque is a "moderate" mosque. Problem is, radical Islamists like to pose as moderates, to trick folks. Get it? Remember that nice "moderate" Alamoudi?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXxoPMzBSuQ

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    From the previews, it looks like season 2 of "24."

    It made me consider that even MORE torture is necessary, if you can believe that....

    I mean, you got to feel for Samuel Jackson. He is the real hero in the movie....

    Michale.....

  208. [208] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But his superiors were afraid to take action because of the politically correct attitude fostered by the Obama Administration that said, "Hands Off Muslims!"

    Really? That's what the report said?

    You willing to put some money on that, Michale?

    Specifically, I'd like to bet you that the report didn't say "his superiors were afraid to take action because of the politically correct attitude fostered by the Obama Administration that said, 'Hands Off Muslims!'"

    I don't know which report you're referring to, but the DoD report classified this as an act of workplace violence.

    How about a friendly 10 million quatloos if an official report actually says that?

    :)
    -David

    Report I read: http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100820FortHoodFollowon.pdf

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Well, you can believe the report issued for public consumption..

    Or, you can look at the facts...

    Internal investigations
    Main article: Joint Terrorism Task Force
    The FBI noted that Hasan had first been brought to their attention in December 2008 by a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). Communications between Hasan and al-Awlaki, and other similar communications, were reviewed and considered to be consistent with Hasan's research on radical beliefs at the Walter Reed Medical Center. "Because the content of the communications was explainable by his research and nothing else derogatory was found, the JTTF concluded that Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning." However, both the FBI and the Department of Defense plan to review if this assessment was handled correctly.[108]
    FBI Director Robert Mueller appointed William Webster, a former director of the FBI, to conduct an independent FBI review of the bureau's handling of possible warning signs from Hasan. The review is expected to be long-term and in-depth, with Webster selected for the job due to being, as Mueller put it, "uniquely qualified" for such a review.[116]
    On January 15, 2010, the Department of Defense released the findings of the departmental investigation, which found that the Department was unprepared to defend against internal threats. Secretary Robert Gates said that previous incidents had not drawn enough attention to workplace violence and "self-radicalization" within the military. He also suggested that some officials may be held responsible for not drawing attention to Hasan prior to the shooting.[117] The Department report did not touch upon Hasan's motivations, including his multiple contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, and his yelling "Allahu Akhbar" as he began the attack.[118]
    James Corum, a retired Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel and Dean at the Baltic Defence College in Estonia, called the Defense Department report "a travesty", for failing to mention Hasan's devotion to Islam and his radicalization prior to the attack.[119] Texas Representative John Carter was also critical of the report, saying he felt the government was "afraid to be accused of profiling somebody".[120] John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission and Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, said he felt that the report "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become."[118] Similarly, columnist Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote: "Even ... if the report's purpose was to craft lessons to prevent future attacks, how could they leave out radical Islam?"[121] The leaders of the investigation, former Secretary of the Army Togo West and retired Admiral Vernon Clark, responded to criticism by saying their "concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations", and that they did not want to conflict with the criminal investigation on Hasan that was under way.[118]
    In February 2010 the Boston Globe obtained a confidential internal report detailing results of the Army's investigation. According to the Globe, the report concluded officers within the Army were aware of Hasan's tendencies toward radical Islam since 2005, and adduced one incident in 2007 in which Hasan gave a classroom presentation titled "Is the War on Terrorism a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective". The instructor interrupted Hasan's presentation as it appeared he was justifying terrorism, according to the Globe. Despite receiving complaints about this presentation, and other statements suggestive of his conflicted loyalties, Hasan's superior officers took no action, believing Hasan's comments were protected under the First Amendment and that having a Muslim psychiatrist contributed to diversity. However, the investigation noted Hasan's statements might have been grounds for removing him from service as the First Amendment did not apply to soldiers the same way as for civilians.[122]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

    Even a civilian could read between the lines of this and realize that the military feared being accused of discrimination against Islam..

    Political correctness doomed the Fort Hood victims..

    Michale.....

  210. [210] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You yourself said the guy was a whack job, Michale. And now you're going to blame it all on liberal political correctness.

    Well, if the 1st Amendment is "political correctness", I'll be happy to take credit for that as a liberal. See? Liberals created our Constitution.

    We sure are a powerful bunch.

    Reading between the lines ... hmmm. I'll take my quatloos now, please.

    Do you find anything ironic about raging against political correctness and everything liberals say at the same time?

    Yunno ... you feel you're being silenced ... or some other conservative viewpoint is being silenced ... so you shout out against the enemy you're told is doing this to you. Even though no one ever really did to you until you shouted out your opinion in the first place.

    It's kinda like the phony war on Christmas. The media tells you that liberals are warring against Xmas and are anti-Christian. So you have to defend yourself. And fight back against the liberals. And when the liberals say: "Huh, what are you talking about?" you know you've got them because they're denying it and getting angry and calling you crazy.

    The same pattern repeats with the mosque story. The media strikes fear into the hearts of conservatives. A mosque is going to be built. And liberals aren't doing anything to stop it The conservatives go after the liberals. And when the liberals say: "Huh, what are you talking about?" you know you've got them because they're denying it and getting angry and calling you crazy.

    It's the same with the Tea Party. They're telling you your freedoms are threatened by liberal communists. So you need to go after the liberals and take our country back. And when the liberals say: "Huh, what are you talking about?" you know you've got them because they're denying it and getting angry and calling you crazy.

    After a while, you start to see the pattern. Like a broken record, as my mom would say.

    I bet the people in the story factory get a kick out of all the power they have in turning folks against each other.

    Just some random thoughts late on a Thursday night.

    G'nite all!
    David

    Cheers
    David

  211. [211] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. Space station was visible crossing the sky tonight. Kind of amazing!

  212. [212] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The same pattern repeats with the mosque story. The media strikes fear into the hearts of conservatives. A mosque is going to be built. And liberals aren't doing anything to stop it The conservatives go after the liberals. And when the liberals say: "Huh, what are you talking about?" you know you've got them because they're denying it and getting angry and calling you crazy.

    There's a little more at stake than that, David. This isn't about politics and partisanship; this is about national security. We have a documented history of radical Islamists inside this country assuming phony, "moderate" fronts, who depend upon political correctness to shield them AND aid their efforts. And it's incumbent upon every American to not only be informed of this very serious problem but to take warning signs seriously; not just automatically leap to the defense of any Muslim who cries "Islamaphobia!" When a do-gooder's rhetoric does not jive with his "moderate" label or so-called noble mission, you have to ask questions, NOT immediately attack anyone who dares to raise them. These phony moderates are counting on you to do just that.

    [excerpt] Consider Bob, who feels so offended by antimosque activists in his state of Tennessee that these feelings alone drive him to support more mosques—without prior thought to what, exactly, he's supporting. "I found local citizens to be intolerant and un-American," Bob tells me over email. "So as a gesture of tolerance and Americanism, I donated to the mosque building fund."

    Before pledging a penny, Bob should have asked the imam: "Where will the men's side of this mosque be?" It's a discreet way of discerning whether the project will replicate segregation, and thus whether the mosque will wind up bolstering the intolerant behavior that Bob can't abide.

    I am not saying that Bob should cast his lot with antimosque demonstrators. I am simply saying he should not give them the power to commandeer his brain by hijacking his heart.
    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/c54e21182d8df7abd80535099833ee15-259.html

    That article is well worth reading. This is not a gotcha game between political parties. This is a very real, concerted effort going on inside our borders by radical Islamist posers, hell-bent on turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation.

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    You yourself said the guy was a whack job, Michale. And now you're going to blame it all on liberal political correctness.

    Well, I said he was a "fruitcake", but "whack job" will also do nicely.. :D

    Secondly, I am not blaming it "all" on political correctness. I am very big into "personal responsibility" and Hasan needs to "have a heapin' helpin' " of it...

    But it is undeniable that political correctness and the "hands off Muslims" attitude played a BIG part in the massacre..

    Hasan would not have been in a position to take those lives if the military had did it's job and not worried about what our political leaders and the hysterical Left might have thought...

    While I wouldn't subscribe to the "war on Christmas" theory, it is undeniable that there is a co-ordinated effort to curtail CHRISTIAN religious freedoms.

    Why do you think we have "Spring Break" instead of Easter Vacation?? Why do you think we have "Winter Break" instead of Christmas Vacation??

    Because those on the Left made it happen by their co-ordinated effort to curtail the religious freedom of Christians...

    Which is why it is so hypocritical and ironic that the Left is so up in arms about pushing religious freedom for the Cordoba Mosque..

    It's almost as if the **LEFT** thinks that Islam is "Anti American" so the Left wants to give Islam all the freedom it wants...

    Intellectually, I know this is not true, but you can't help but wonder what is prompting the religious freedom crusade of the Cordoba Mosque issue..

    Speaking of Islam, there is a pretty nifty graph that was brought to my attention this morning..

    http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7py0hxcyx1qblt18o1_500.jpg

    Now take a look at this graph...

    According to this graph, there are approx 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world..

    Al Qaeda represents around 10,000 of that 1.5 Billion, which is like what??? .00000001% or something like that??

    Now, this begs the question..

    How could Al Qaeda exist under the "scorn" and "condemnation" of 1.5 BILLION Muslims??

    The fact is, it couldn't....

    Ergo, there IS no scorn or condemnation against Al Qaeda coming from the vast majority of those 1.5 Billion Muslims..

    Only support and approval...

    I want to thank Osborne Ink for bringing this graph to my attention. It really shows better than anything else, the exact threat that radical Islam represents to the safety and security of this country in the form of those 1.5 Billion Muslims.

    Michale.....

  214. [214] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Despite receiving complaints about this presentation, and other statements suggestive of his conflicted loyalties, Hasan's superior officers took no action, believing Hasan's comments were protected under the First Amendment and that having a Muslim psychiatrist contributed to diversity.

    Political correctness compromising national security. Right there you have a perfect portrait of it.

  215. [215] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Political correctness compromising national security. Right there you have a perfect portrait of it.

    So "political correctness" is ignoring the First Amendment? I thought you wanted to restore our country to its Constitutional roots. Conservatives are so confusing. One minute they're screaming "Constitution, Constitution, Constitution ..." The next they're saying, well, the Constitution's all well and good, but we can ignore it just by saying the words "national security" and clicking our heels.

    Doesn't this mean you can ignore the Constitution whenever you want?

    I just don't think you're taking this seriously, CB. What you're talking about is putting millions of lives at stake rather than just single incidents like Ft. Hood. Instead of freedom for all, what you want America to stand for is freedom for some. When Al Qaeda attacked us their goal was to provoke the U.S. into attacking indiscriminately, harming the innocent as well as the guilty. They expected this reaction and counted on it to build support. And when we invaded Iraq, we created a whole country of potential terrorists. Now you want to create 18 million more potential terrorists (thx for the graph, Michale) by associating more Muslims with terrorists.

    Seriously?

    Al Qaeda represents around 10,000 of that 1.5 Billion, which is like what??? .00000001% or something like that??

    That's a great graph, Michale. Thanks for sharing. I can see why Matt likes it.

    .00000001%. Statistically, that's zero.

    Zero would be desirable. I know you'll agree. But if you listen to security experts, they say zero is impossible. You can't make computers 100% secure. You can't eliminate 100% of crime or terror. Unless you have precognition. All you can do is try to reduce the probability.

    And that graph, to me, looks like the probability is pretty damn close. Meaning that our culture and Muslim culture does a good job of creating non-terrorists.

    Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

    Cheers
    David

    While I wouldn't subscribe to the "war on Christmas" theory, it is undeniable that there is a co-ordinated effort to curtail CHRISTIAN religious freedoms.

    LOL. You either believe it or you don't, Michale.

    You can't say you don't believe it and then in the same sentence say that there's some kind of coordinated anti-Christian movement.

    I guess you instead believe in the War on Christians. And the War on Christmas is just one small battle in this war. But it's a much larger conspiracy than just Xmas!!! (Whups, I slipped up. Now you know that I'm part of the vast scheme to take the Christ out of Christmas!!!!)

    Ok, ok. I'm sorry. But yunno. Maybe there's other explanations than a vast conspiracy. Like maybe Spring Break is called Spring Break because Easter is never on the same day each year.

    I wish we were powerful enough to have a vast conspiracy which could rename holidays. But ... to put the joke back on us ... do you think liberals could ever truly be that coordinated? :)

  216. [216] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I saw one of the HuffPo writers refer to Glenn Beck's event tomorrow as "Beckapalooza." Hahaha.

    Meanwhile, for you, David: Y'know how one of the big liberal kneejerk defenses for "moderate" Rauf is that he helped the FBI? We also have a history of phony moderates doing that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PgmFH_8fRU

    Helping law enforcement is how these radical Imams help build credibility and "moderate" reputations for themselves.

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    So "political correctness" is ignoring the First Amendment?

    No, political correctness is ignoring obvious warning signs for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings..

    Give you a fer instance...

    In the state of AZ, it's perfectly OK to walk around while armed with handguns..

    Now, in this office, you have a guy who always comes to work armed.. Perfectly legal to do..

    But the guy is a hothead, always getting into arguments with people. But, because everyone wants to be politically correct, no one says anything to him about it... Mustn't tread on the guys rights and all that, right??? Mustn't hurt his feelings or anything..

    Til one day the guy just snaps and shoots everyone in the office...

    THAT is a case of political correctness trumping public safety..

    Ironically enough, it's nearly identical to the Hasan/Fort Hood situation, except you substitute a terrorist sympathizer for the hothead...

    Doesn't this mean you can ignore the Constitution whenever you want?

    No, it means that you show a little common sense and realize that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.. You realize that if it's a choice between being politically correct and obeying the Constitution to the letter and taking a bullet to the head or saying, "Frak his rights, I am going to survive" guess which one common sense dictates???

    Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

    The point of the graph is why can't 1.5 Billion Muslims eliminate Al Qaeda instead of supporting terrorists???

    If things are as YOU say and that the vast majority of Muslims are AGAINST terrorists and terrorism, then Islamic terrorism would be all but eliminated..

    IF things are as YOU claim them to be...

    Or is the reality that the vast majority of Muslims SUPPORT and ENCOURAGE the Islamic terrorists and THAT is why the likes of Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah have been allowed to flourish as Islamic terrorist organizations??

    And if that is the reality, as all the evidence clearly shows, then doesn't it behoove us, as Americans, to be vigilant against Islamic terrorism??? I mean, since the US is the prime target of Islamic terrorism, doesn't it make sense to guard AGAINST terrorism, rather than make it EASIER for terrorists to attack us??

    Doesn't that make MORE sense then worrying about being politically correct towards terrorists??

    I can see why Matt likes it.

    Yea, well he has his own issues, to be sure.. :D

    Like maybe Spring Break is called Spring Break because Easter is never on the same day each year.

    Yet it was perfectly fine for decades.. Until POLITICALLY CORRECT became the vogue... :D

    I wish we were powerful enough to have a vast conspiracy which could rename holidays. But ... to put the joke back on us ... do you think liberals could ever truly be that coordinated? :)

    Apparently so... They took back control of Congress and the White House...

    However temporarily... :D

    Michale.....

  218. [218] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If things are as YOU say and that the vast majority of Muslims are AGAINST terrorists and terrorism, then Islamic terrorism would be all but eliminated.

    I can hardly see terrorists on that graph. Looks to me to be pretty close to statistically zero.

    Are you sure you're not looking at another graph? :)

    Doesn't that make MORE sense then worrying about being politically correct towards terrorists?

    Huh? This question doesn't make any sense. No one's being politically correct towards terrorists.

    And if that is the reality, as all the evidence clearly shows, then doesn't it behoove us, as Americans, to be vigilant against Islamic terrorism?

    Sure. But let's do it within the law and within our principles. This shows that we are for freedom of religion and are not trying to deny anyone this fundamental right and that we are not getting sucked into some kind of Holy War that extremists want us to get sucked into.

    Or is the reality that the vast majority of Muslims SUPPORT and ENCOURAGE the Islamic terrorists and THAT is why the likes of Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah have been allowed to flourish as Islamic terrorist organizations?

    You're doing it again. Confusing terrorists with Muslims.

    I don't know how familiar you are with the Palestinian issue, Michale. But after WWII, a lot of Jews got together and decided they would create a new country around what they saw as their holy land. To do this, they had to do something with the people who lived there. And they've been doing something with these people ever since. I think it's far more likely this is the reason for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

    And I noticed you didn't answer this question: Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

    Would you rather have less than 10,000 terrorists? Or 1.5 billion?

    Cheers, off to beers,
    David

  219. [219] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Huh? This question doesn't make any sense. No one's being politically correct towards terrorists.

    Not that you're aware of at the time you're doing it. It's not until after the "moderate" Imam or so-called peaceful Muslim organization has been exposed as a terrorist-linked, and people are arrested and convicted, can one look back at how political correctness enabled them to get as far as they did. Hasan is perfect example of that.

  220. [220] 
    akadjian wrote:

    can one look back at how political correctness enabled them to get as far as they did. Hasan is perfect example of that.

    Yes, we know, CB. We get it. It's all liberals fault. Everything. That's what I keep tell you.

    We need to get these insidious liberals out of office before their political correctness destroys Christmas. And puppies.

    Liberals. What will they destroy next?

    Paid for by the committee to elect a Republican Congress in 2010

    It's hard to take you seriously, CB, when your conclusion is always the same. No matter what the topic. It's the liberals. The liberals done it.

    At least Michale has an independent streak in him. You just seem to be all anti-liberal, all the time, 24x7.

  221. [221] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. I hate to say it, but I'm waiting for the moment when some conservative pundit just comes out and calls for investigations of liberals. I used to think there was no way this could ever happen, but lately, it seems more and more likely.

    Sooner or later I think someone will quit insinuating and start screaming. Seems to be the modus operandi.

    Any takers on this bet?

  222. [222] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- This is one I'd rather lose.

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    David

    I can hardly see terrorists on that graph. Looks to me to be pretty close to statistically zero.

    Well, those "statistically zero" terrorists did quite a bit o damage about 9 years ago...

    The point is, they should have been ALL but eliminated if, as you claim, the majority of Muslims do not support and condone terrorism.

    How can such a "statistically zero" group still thrive in the face of 1.5 BILLION Muslims against them??

    The fact is, they couldn't.. IF the vast majority of those 1.5 Billion Muslims were actually against terrorism and not supporting it..

    Huh? This question doesn't make any sense. No one's being politically correct towards terrorists.

    How do you know your not?? The Cordoba Mosque group may be a total hotbed of terrorist activity.. And you don't want to have them investigated for fear of being politically incorrect...

    I don't know how familiar you are with the Palestinian issue, Michale. But after WWII, a lot of Jews got together and decided they would create a new country around what they saw as their holy land. To do this, they had to do something with the people who lived there. And they've been doing something with these people ever since. I think it's far more likely this is the reason for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah

    I am intimately familiar with the Palestinian issue.

    But once again, we are back to your position that, if we be nice to terrorists, they will stop being terrorists..

    There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support such a claim and boo-koo (it's an industry term) evidence to support the contrary..

    We could ask Nicholas Berg or Daniel Pearl.

    Oh wait. No we can't. Because they were butchered by terrorists..

    Yes, we know, CB. We get it. It's all liberals fault. Everything. That's what I keep tell you.

    No one is saying that. But I have noticed that you always respond in this off the cuff humorous/sarcastic manner when you are backed into a corner..

    It is undeniable that political correctness very much contributed to the Hasan attack...

    And it is this kind of political correctness that is on display here.

    Let me ask you. Do you think it's a good idea to investigate the Cordoba Group and it's funding to make SURE that there are no terrorist ties??

    It's a simple yes or no question..

    p.s. I hate to say it, but I'm waiting for the moment when some conservative pundit just comes out and calls for investigations of liberals. I used to think there was no way this could ever happen, but lately, it seems more and more likely.

    You mean like when Nancy Pelosi called for an investigation of those that oppose the Cordoba Mosque???

    Is THAT the kind of "investigations" you mean???

    Michale.....

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Let me ask you this...

    Let's say you take a trip to Islamabad, Pakistan. Or Baghdad, Iraq. Or Somalia. Or Yemen.

    Do you think it would be safe to assume a politically correct attitude that not all Muslims are terrorists??

    I mentioned Berg and Pearl previously. They assumed that not all Muslims are terrorists.

    Look where that got them...

    But what really irks me is not that the Left wants to live by their ideals and principles. I find that admirable. Berg and Pearl lived by their ideals and principles as well. They also died for them.

    No, what irks me is that the Left would have their ideals and principles IMPOSED on the rest of us who would prefer to go on living rather than having their principles...

    There are several officers of the US Army who were in a direct position to stop the Hasan massacre before it started..

    Can you imagine the living hell they are going thru, knowing that they let political correctness influence their decisions and now 13 people are dead because of it?

    What we need is a little more common sense and a LOT less political correctness..

    When you have a religious leader who won't label a known and proven terrorist group AS a terrorist group, when he says that the US has more blood on it's hands than Al Qaeda and says that the US was an accessory to the 9/11 attacks, then isn't it COMMON SENSE to suspect that something is untoward??

    Hasan gave MANY of the exact same indications and those indications were ignored...

    And we know the result..

    Do you want to wait until there are more deaths at the hands of terrorists connected with Rauf and the Cordoba Group?? Or isn't it more logical to be PRO-ACTIVE and investigate the group fully.. And maybe STOP those deaths??

    I'll take option B...

    Michale.....

  225. [225] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    When you have a religious leader who won't label a known and proven terrorist group AS a terrorist group, when he says that the US has more blood on it's hands than Al Qaeda and says that the US was an accessory to the 9/11 attacks, then isn't it COMMON SENSE to suspect that something is untoward??

    ROFL. One would think so. Especially since it's the same behavior exhibited by former "moderates" who are now sitting in jail cells on various terrorism-related charges.

  226. [226] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  227. [227] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Check it out, David

    http://www.chris11962.com/videos/videos/obsession.html

    Sorry, CB. I don't click on advertisements. Post here if you'd like me to read.

    Michale, once again still no answer. Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

    -David

  228. [228] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But once again, we are back to your position that, if we be nice to terrorists, they will stop being terrorists.

    No one is arguing this, Michale. I just believe that an important part of our strategy should be to win over the moderates. Something you already said you agree with.

    I'm not sure where you're getting this "being nice to terrorists" thing. I'm all for going after those who commit terrorist crimes and taking preventative measures (common ground). But I also believe that this strategy alone is not strong enough. And, I also believe that by doing things like targeting 80% of American mosques, we lose the support of the moderates.

    So basically I'm not sure who you're arguing with.

    Cheers
    David

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Michale, once again still no answer. Do you think targeting more Muslims is more likely to increase or decrease the number of terrorists?

    I think targeting more TERRORISTS is likely to decrease the number of terrorists..

    If targeting terrorists is a problem for Muslims, well then that is a prime indication of where their sympathies lay, now isn't it?

    Anyone, Muslim or otherwise, who has a problem with aggressively targeting terrorists is someone who is not much worth anything anyways...

    One is either PRO-terrorist or ANTI-terrorist...

    There is no gray area, despite the common misconception on the Left..

    No one is arguing this, Michale. I just believe that an important part of our strategy should be to win over the moderates. Something you already said you agree with.

    Yes, I agree that we should work with and win over moderates.. But moderates need to PROVE that they are moderates.. We cannot, we WILL NOT just assume they are moderates because they say they are.

    It sounds like that's what you want to do.

    When you have a Muslim who SAYS he is a moderate, but says things like the US has more blood on their hands then Al Qaeda and that the US was an accessory to the 9/11 attacks....

    How can you even THINK that that person is a moderate??

    Michale.....

  230. [230] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    http://www.chris11962.com/videos/videos/obsession.html

    Sorry, CB. I don't click on advertisements. Post here if you'd like me to read.

    Huh? It's my website. It's a like to a video.

  231. [231] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    When you have a Muslim who SAYS he is a moderate, but says things like the US has more blood on their hands then Al Qaeda and that the US was an accessory to the 9/11 attacks....

    How can you even THINK that that person is a moderate??

    That's why I keep asking: What does a self-proclaimed "moderate" have to say or do to raise a liberal's suspicion?

  232. [232] 
    akadjian wrote:

    One is either PRO-terrorist or ANTI-terrorist.

    Let's see. So what you're saying is you're anti-terrorist and anyone who disagrees with you is pro-terrorist?

    You're being ridiculous again, Michale. We just have different views of how to combat terrorism. I'm anti-terrorist too. I just disagree with your views on how best to address terrorism.

    The difference between us is that you're trying to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist.

    Yes, I agree that we should work with and win over moderates.. But moderates need to PROVE that they are moderates.

    So how do you intend to have 1.5 Billion Muslims prove they are not terrorists?

    I'm curious to know what you're thinking here.

    And ... do we have to prove to them that we're moderate? I think this would only be fair.

    Cheers
    David

  233. [233] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I think targeting more TERRORISTS is likely to decrease the number of terrorists..

    I noticed you still didn't answer the question. What about the Muslims you're targeting who aren't terrorists?

    And, what's your process for distinguishing between those who are and those who aren't terrorists?

    I guess, using your definition, if they disagree with you, they're pro-terrorist. Because you're anti-terrorist and the only other option is pro-terrorist.

    Whew, that's gonna be a lot people. Not just Muslims.

    What do you do with all of us once you define us as pro-terrorist?

    I'd just like to know where you're going with all of this.

    If targeting terrorists is a problem for Muslims, well then that is a prime indication of where their sympathies lay, now isn't it?

    No. I think it's an indication of anger at being unjustly accused and suspected of being a terrorist. Would you like being suspected of being a terrorist?

  234. [234] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I'm not sure where you're getting this "being nice to terrorists" thing. I'm all for going after those who commit terrorist crimes and taking preventative measures (common ground).

    We have to discover who they are first, David. The bad guys, posing as "moderates," are mixed in with the good guys. So the way to figure out who's who is to look for classic warning signs, e.g., an Imam who claims he's "moderate" though refuses to state that Hamas is a terrorist organization. That's the point at which we need to question if that Imam is genuinely "moderate."

    This will explain it all. For your own sake, please watch it: http://chris11962.com/videos/videos/obsession.html

    And it you don't have time to watch the whole thing right now, at least watch the first two parts. They're just a couple of minutes each.

  235. [235] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    No. I think it's an indication of anger at being unjustly accused and suspected of being a terrorist.

    Nobody's accused or suspected of anything UNTIL such time as (for instance) they're asked if they perceive Hamas as a terrorist organization and they can't bring themselves to say "yes." That's a major tip-off to anyone with common sense. Get real, David.

  236. [236] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Get real, David.

    You must be pretty desperate, CB, if the best you've got is "get real" :)

    I realize you're trying to generate traffic for your website. But "get real, come visit my website" isn't working for me.

    As I stated before, I don't click on advertising.

  237. [237] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I don't know what you're talking about, David. I have YouTube videos on my site, which you sure don't seem to want to see.

  238. [238] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Well, those "statistically zero" terrorists did quite a bit o damage about 9 years ago...

    Yeah, those "statistically zero" terrorists have been conducting a holy war all around the world, with plenty of innocent dead "infidels" under their belts. But, hey, as long as there's a neat little chart to downplay it all — and to casually leave off the Muslim SYPATHIZERS of the holy warriors — let's just forget that that we've got the enemy right here in this country, planning ways to kill innocent Americans as we speak.

    Next time this country is attacked, let's all print out our chart and hold it up, to prove that we really don't have anything to be concerned about.

  239. [239] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CB-
    While it's great to try to make the Democrats look weak and beat the drum of fear what I miss from conservatives most these days is they won't say anything about their plan.

    How does your vision differ from the 2-pronged strategy I discussed previously? Who do you want to investigate and for what reasons?

    I'd be more impressed if conservatives would stop with all the fearmongering and tell us what they want to do. But I guess that would just be silly, eh?

    Cheers
    David

  240. [240] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    It's not fearmongering; it's a desire to educate liberals to the very real holy war that's going on — including right here, inside this country, as the various videos I've provided have demonstrated. What bothers me most is the resistance to even learn about it. Have you even bothered to watch any of them? I ask because you never have anything to say about them. And you also still don't seem to know what the enemy's terms are, i.e., conversion to Islam and compliance with Sharia. Period. End of discussion. They don't want outreach from the West; they plan to dominate the West. And those who don't convert and comply — including Muslimes who don't practice Sharia — die. Those are the enemy's terms and that's the first thing liberals have to understand, D.

    The second thing is that the Left understands that the holy warriors, inside the United States, use mosques as recruitment centers and money-funneling operations. So conservatives would like for liberals to stop immediately leaping to the defense of "moderate" mosque builders and owners who come under fire and concentrate on WHAT they're under fire for: in this case, we have Imam Rauf on record as having espoused all the classic NON-MODERATE rhetoric.

    So instead of auto-defending him, how about questioning WHY he's espousing classic anti-American rhetoric while claiming to be a moderate. IOW, consider the (distinct) possibility that he — like other self-proclaimed moderates, who've turned out, instead, to be working for the enemy and are presently sitting in prison — may not be the moderate he says he is. Become aware of the WARNING SIGNS and when they present themselves, THINK before politically correctly leaping to defend him. That is the very least you can do for your country, since phony Imams, working from the inside to bring Sharia to America, are part and parcel of this holy war.

    Did you bother to watch the ad-free YOUTUBE film I directed you to?

  241. [241] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    And here's what I mean by "auto-defending":

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/30/new.york.islamic.center.campaign/index.html

    Religious freedom isn't even the issue, but that aside, this provides great cover and support for an Imam who — for all the Left knows — is another Alamoudi. And if you don't know who Alamoudi is, type "Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi" into Wikipedia and read the biography.

    Rauf needs to be asked one very simple question: "Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes or no." He has yet to answer "yes" to that question, and the Left needs to start, at the very least, WONDERING why.

  242. [242] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Rauf needs to be asked one very simple question: "Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes or no.

    Still not sure what the plan is, CB. It sounds like first we ask all of the Muslims in America if they think Hamas is a terrorist organization.

    If they answer, no, then what? How do you intend to separate terrorists from moderate Muslims? What's the plan?

    Cheers
    -David

    p.s. Post your Youtube videos here if you want me to look at them. On the web, clicks are currency. And I would rather not contribute to your site.

  243. [243] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Rauf needs to be asked one very simple question: "Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes or no.

    Still not sure what the plan is, CB. It sounds like first we ask all of the Muslims in America if they think Hamas is a terrorist organization.

    Is that what I said? Maybe you should read my post again, where I state that when a self-described moderate espouses non-moderate sentiments, we should ask THAT person the question.

    p.s. Post your Youtube videos here if you want me to look at them. On the web, clicks are currency. And I would rather not contribute to your site.

    Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. There are no ads on my site, and I'm not an affiliate of Google Ads or any other online ad organization. I make zero money when you click on my site. I created that site so that my friends could finds things easily, in one place, rather than have to (for instance) hunt around for parts of movies on YouTube. But if you'd rather do that, for God knows what reason, here ya go:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc&feature=player_embedded

    It's split into 10 parts. Have fun finding them.

  244. [244] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Here's another, called The Third Jihad:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZHnfFLZ9XU&feature=player_embedded

    That one's in 4 parts.

    Or you can just watch them on my site, since I put them there for your convenience and ease.

  245. [245] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    N.Y. Islamic center imam calls opponents 'small, vociferous' group
    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/3a8bbb7302926117615dd4eb853bcfab-293.html

    Well, jeepers, that's odd. Last I checked, opponents consisted of 70-some-odd percent of NYers and about 67% of Americans nationwide. I do believe "moderate" Imam Rauf if telling lies on his tax-dollar-paid Kumbaya tour.

  246. [246] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    From the NY Times:

    "...But making these kind of distinctions doesn’t require us to suspend all judgment where would-be Islamic moderates are concerned. Instead, dialogue needs to coexist with pressure: Figures like Ramadan and now Rauf should be held to a high standard by their non-Muslim interlocutors, and their forays into more dubious territory should be greeted with swift pushback, rather than simply being accepted as a necessary part of the moderate Muslim package. (This is particularly true because Westerners have a long record of seeing what they want to see in self-proclaimed Islamic reformers, from the Ayatollah Khomeini down to Anwar Al Awlaki, and failing to recognize extremism when it’s staring them in the face.) And what’s troubling about some of the liberal reaction to the Cordoba Initiative controversy is that it seems to regard this kind of pressure as illegitimate and dangerous in and of itself — as though the First Amendment protects the right of Rauf and Co. to build their mosque and cultural center, but not the right of critics to scrutinize Rauf’s moderate bona fides, parse some of his more disturbing comments, and raise doubts about the benefits (to American Islam as well as to America) of having him set up shop as an arbiter of Muslim-Western dialogue in what used to be the shadow of the World Trade Center...."
    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/acbf20e34949283ebf0b73a82d7ee519-294.html

  247. [247] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Is that what I said? Maybe you should read my post again, where I state that when a self-described moderate espouses non-moderate sentiments, we should ask THAT person the question.

    Then what if they won't say Hamas is a terrorist organization? I personally know many moderate Muslims who would say they don't agree w/ the tactics of Hamas but would also condemn the Israelis. Does this make these Muslims terrorists? Do you arrest them? Kick them out of the country? What's the rest of your policy?

    And what constitutes a non-moderate sentiment? And who determines what constitutes a non-moderate sentiment?

    And how do we prove to them that we're moderate Americans? Do they get to ask us if we condemn the Israeli invasion of Palestine? Or the Iraq War?

    Still trying to figure out how your plan works. It seems very arbitrary and subject to the prevailing pundit winds of the day. It would be nice to establish some principles based on something a little less circumstantial.

    -David

  248. [248] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Something like ... Idunno ... evidence perhap. Due process maybe.

    If this doesn't occur then what you end up with is something like Obama's assassination program:

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/08/30/assassinations

  249. [249] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    >>>Then what if they won't say Hamas is a terrorist organization?>>>

    Then there's reason to believe that the person is not a moderate but a Hamas sympathizer, as evidenced on the YOUTUBE video I showed you of past self-proclaimed "moderates" who are in jail right now. (I'm assuming you even bothered to watch it.)

    Then you get to look at even more statements that the self-proclaimed "moderate" has made on record. Like blaming America instead of Saddam for starving children in Iraq. And accusations of America having more blood on its hands than al Qaeda. And America being partially responsible for the 9/11 attack. Etc.

    Then, of course, there's the name "Cordoba," and the "bridge building" goal which has turned out to be anything but, and the adamant refusal to consider any other building, including free property, and the plan to fund-raise in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and imam Rauf himself presently telling lies on his tax-paid mission.

    I'm not quite sure what kind of "evidence" you believe is needed for grounds for suspicion, but there's plenty right there, given what we already know of the classic M.O. of radical imams posing as moderates.

    Shockingly enough, with radical Islamists at war with America, it's not incumbent upon us to automatically take a self-proclaimed moderate at his word. When questions arise over his statements and actions, he's the one who gets to explain himself.

  250. [250] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Something like ... Idunno ... evidence perhap.

    That's already been laid out about a dozen times.

    Due process maybe.

    First comes evidence. Then comes investigation. Then comes whatever comes of it.

    If this doesn't occur then what you end up with is something like Obama's assassination program

    I have no problem whatsoever with assassinating an enemy combatant who's actively engaged in war on the battlefield.

  251. [251] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    And the ball gets dropped once again...

    Two Men on United Flight from Chicago Arrested on 'Preparation of a Terrorist Attack' in Amsterdam
    Suspects Had Been Cleared Sunday by TSA in Chicago, Birmingham Despite Security Concerns.
    http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/db70dab6524f0330b995a061176a6266-297.html

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]