Ground Zero mosque wins approval !!

[muse]

Indef

Indians seem to have a problem understanding that this issue is an American issue, not a US vs Islam issue -

 

[inddef]

i support the mosque and US law. however, institutionalized hypocrisy will not endear.

 

[Developereo]

OK since you are so obsessed with discussing individuals and calling me a bigot, let me reciprocate by calling you an Islamic extremist Pakistani bigot, an apologist for Pakistani and Islamic terror and a hypocrite demanding from secular democracies what you won't reciprocate in your own Islamic countries.

The charge does not apply since it is false and irrelevant.

The difference in your case is that your posts document your continued anti-Islam bigotry and your selective myopia regarding religious violence.

You and one other esteemed member are missing the woods for the trees. It is not an Indian issue. A very small number of Indians are offering their opinions on an issue. The issue itself is American and it is some Americans who think that building a mosque there is like rubbing salt into the wounds.

Precisely!

Yet it is Indians like you who keep bringing in selectively picked religious violence from other parts of the world into this discussion. Hence the charge of Indian bigots jumping with joy at any opportunity to bash Islam.

I saw this email supposedly by an American professor

Yawn. Now we are down to 'supposed emails'? What's next? You will start quoting blog rants and hate websites to support your point? Oh wait, you already travelled that route...

Here it is about one more mosque in a place that many Americans consider was the site of Islamic terror attacks on them, in some Islamic countries you can't build a place of worship for any other religion at all!

So now your defence boils down to "we're not as bad as Saudi Arabia". Splendid! You just lost the debate.

Have we ever seen a protest even by a solitary Muslim?

You're absolutely right. Not a single muslim has ever protested against 9/11.

Someone enjoying full religious rights as a minority declares that as a majority he will not allow the same rights when Muslims are a religious majority.

Once again you prove your lack of debating skills by resorting to desperation tactics of digging up extremist rants. We can all dig up instances of jewish extremists calling Arabs dogs, or christian extremists calling for wholesale bombing of muslims.

Responsible debaters in command of their facts don't need to resort to these tactics.

This is typical liberal minded view, when one cannot discuss in par, it boils down to racism or Bigotry, the word of the day...

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Developereo:

1) You cheated. You went back to the post I criticized as an ad hominem attack and edited it into something else. Your "explanation" should have followed my response, not masquerade as something else.

Nope. Compare the timestamp of my edit and your post.

2) The 9-11 hijackers were part of al-Qaeda, which is engaged in a battle for leadership and direction of Islam among Muslims. Your claim that, "any comparison with an organized, state-sanctioned campaign is invalid since the hijackers were representing only themselves; they were representing neither Islam nor a political entity" dismisses that fact completely.

Not at all. Any group can claim to represent whomever; it doesn't mean that they actually do. By your logic, Bernard Goetz and similar vigilantes represent all New Yorkers, since they claimed to be acting on behalf of New Yorkers fed up with crime.

Furthermore, even the GoP does not believe in your thinking, or else it would consider the suicide attackers of Pakistani mosques and shrines as the only criminals, and not hunt down the individuals and organizations which supported and directed them.

How is tracking down the chain of command/sponsorship in any way related to broader representation or legitimacy?

You have not, therefore, invalidated the comparison between building a nunnery at a Nazi extermination camp with building a mosque near ground zero. So Krauthammer's criticism and my admonition remain unstained.

AM, muse and others have already demolished these desperate comparisons. The only thing that remains unstained is the fact that you guys are running out of legitimate debating points.

The true figure for deaths in Iraq by Americans

Uh huh. And the tooth fairy dances with Santa Claus.

The pre-invasion US-led sanctions alone killed half a million Iraqi kids.

I would rather you don't obsess with me and keep to just my posts. If you don't like them, just ignore them.

Not a chance!
You will be held to task for your hateful anti-Islam rants.

This is why I say let it be built. It will take only one to claim to speak for all muslims a 'triumphalist' sermon that will reveal to all Americans and the rest of the world that this is neither a 'mosque' nor 'cultural center' but a victory statement.

It is inevitable that some loon somewhere in the world will make this claim.

It is also inevitable that the western media will have a field day when it happens.

But we can't walk on eggshells for fear of extremist rants on either side.

 

[gambit]

Indef

Indians seem to have a problem understanding that this issue is an American issue, not a US vs Islam issue -

But muslims have no problems making anything an 'Islam vs <something>' issue. Public policy does not need a governmental face. There were nothing in the US Constitution that sanctions lynchings and public hangings of blacks. And yet those things did happened. Public policy can be informally endorsed and practiced by a group and if group sentiment is powerful enough, even as powerful an entity as 'the government' may have no choice but to acquiesce to the public. And when we have an agreement between the two, public policy can transcend borders, like in the case of the Muhammad cartoons or the Rushdie affair. I have read enough HERE versions of 'what do you expect' or 'asking for it' when it comes to group, read muslims, sentiments about anything that muslims considered to be offensive to them. But when it comes to American feelings and sentiments, ours are tripe worthy to be trampled upon by muslims. Thanks much.

 

[gambit]

The pre-invasion US-led sanctions alone killed half a million Iraqi kids.

Debunked by a group called CASI, Campaign Against Sanctions in Iraq, in a study done by Garfield. Also, do not forget the Oil-For-Food program managed by the UN. We know how that ended.

 

[Developereo]

Debunked by a group called CASI, Campaign Against Sanctions in Iraq, in a study done by Garfield. Also, do not forget the Oil-For-Food program managed by the UN. We know how that ended.

The estimates range from 170,000 to 1.7 million. Even Garfield comes up with a quarter million.

Unicef estimates half a million.

And these are just children 5 and under.

 

[gambit]

The estimates range from 170,000 to 1.7 million. Even Garfield comes up with a quarter million.

Unicef estimates half a million.

And these are just children 5 and under.

The range should tell you that it remain uncertain of how many actually died during the sanction years. And do not forget about the Oil-For-Food program where Saddam Hussein, China, Russia, Germany, Syria and who knows how many others benefited at the expense of those Iraqi children that you are shedding crocodile tears over.

 

[Developereo]

The range should tell you that it remain uncertain of how many actually died during the sanction years.

The range at least establishes a lower bound and gives some indication of the scale of the atrocity. And the Unicef estimate is in the middle of the range.

And do not forget about the Oil-For-Food program where Saddam Hussein, China, Russia, Germany, Syria and who knows how many others benefited at the expense of those Iraqi children that you are shedding crocodile tears over.

Irrelevant red herring. The blame squarely falls on the US for championing the sanctions and establishing an environment for these others to exploit.

It has not gone unnoticed that western countries are less eager to impose such wholesale sanctions on non-muslim countries.

 

[gambit]

The range at least establishes a lower bound and gives some indication of the scale of the atrocity.



Irrelevant red herring. The blame squarely falls on the US for championing the sanctions and establishing an environment for these others to exploit.

It has not gone unnoticed that western countries are less eager to impose such wholesale sanctions on non-muslim countries.

No...It is not a red herring. The OFF program was administered by the UN, not US. The scandal reached all the way to the Office of the UN SecGen itself. During the program's effective years, Saddam Hussein built billion$$ of palaces instead of diverting those funds to medicines. If anything, given this fact, the US is the red herring.

 

[Developereo]

No...It is not a red herring. The OFF program was administered by the UN, not US. The scandal reached all the way to the Office of the UN SecGen itself. During the program's effective years, Saddam Hussein built billion$$ of palaces instead of diverting those funds to medicines. If anything, given this fact, the US is the red herring.

The sanctions were US-led. Everyone knows how the UN works if the US really wants something.

Saddam was building palaces before, during and after the sanctions. It is irrelevant.

In any case, this is getting off-topic.

 

[gambit]

The sanctions were US-led. Everyone knows how the UN works if the US really wants something.

The finances were UN managed and that other than the US, the other members of the UN Security Council violated the sanctions. One does not need to be a law student to see how ridiculous your argument really is.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

i support the mosque and US law. however, institutionalized hypocrisy will not endear.

Sorry, but in this case you would have to illustrate that 'institutionalized hypocrisy' is practiced by the majority of US Muslims to make a valid argument.

Dragging in an example of Saudi Arabian laws for example does not justify attributing similar attitudes to American Muslims.

 

[Developereo]

The finances were UN managed and that other than the US, the other members of the UN Security Council violated the sanctions.

Once again you miss the whole point that the program was an adjunct to the US-led sanctions. The US championed the cause that created the conditions in the first place. Everything else is fine print.

It is similar to the situation where the US invaded Iraq and destroyed the civil infrastructure, including a functioning police force. Therefore, day-to-day security becomes the responsibility of the occupying force and any deaths due to sectarian thugs are ultimately the fault of the US, since they failed to provide adequate public security.

One does not need to be a law student to see how ridiculous your argument really is.

No, one only needs to have common sense to see cause and effect.

 

[gambit]

Once again you miss the whole point that the program was an adjunct to the US-led sanctions. The US championed the cause that created the conditions in the first place. Everything else is fine print.

Correct...And the fine print allows money, under UN administration supposedly honest and impartial, to buy medicines for Iraq.

No, one only needs to have common sense to see cause and effect.

Which once those who are willing to exercise them will see the US to be the real red herring and the UN, China, Syria, Russia, Germany, France to be the culprit.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That's unfair - If you have read me before, you know that I and a whole bunch of others have consistently argued against this notion of "sentiments" -- but you are right that radical Islamists, particularly such as those representing the Jamaat have consistently used "religious sentiment" argument. "Think more and feel less" this has been a consistent position that I and particularly TT have taken.

But look just because those arguments animated people in Pakistan or elsewhere in Muslim Majority countries, does that mean that it should in the US, as well?

Look, being "offended" we have argued is not grounds for policy action or the law - please be as offended as you want to be - it's a "feeling" - it will pass or not - but "feelings", particularly those around political positions, have a way of "passing" or "evolving" - - but the law is not going to pass, reason and rational approaches are not going to pass, in fact they are method, elementary.

Do some still think of jews as Christ Killers, you bet, but is this "sentiment" any kind of thing for society to base actions on? Can we really insist that Catholics not built a Church near a play ground?

US claims it is not at war with Islam? So why this irrational basis, this "sentiment"? Al-Qaida is not building the Mosque, US Muslim are, and are doing so on private property they own and in doing so exercise their civil liberties -- Some may not like Blacks in their stores, is it OK to demand that Blacks not shop there??

See, you can "feel" any way that you want, but public policy cannot be based on such things and when ever it is, it has be disasterous, ask Pakistanis, ask those segments of society that have suffered directly, as a matter of fact, ask which part of society did not suffer? Would you want the same for the US?

Well said.

As some have admitted now, opposition to the mosque by some Americans is based on 'sentiment and feelings', and there is unfortunately no cure for the sentiments of bigotry and racism that fuel this opposition.

Only self-introspection over years and approaching issues with an open and fair mind may perhaps heal these 'sentiments & feelings' - personally I think its a generational issues, and hope lies with the children of these bigots and racists, though a few of those will also have their minds poisoned by their caretakers.