Ground Zero Mosque (or cultural gathering centre for the politcally correct)

[BigLutz]

Well that just goes back to what I told TFP; the Imam changes his perspective, and it's just dismissed as avoiding controversy. At some point he decided that Hamas was a terrorist organization. It would appear he shares *only* the part of the Hamas philosophy that opposes the "oppression of Palestine" and he doesn't actually support the organization of Hamas. And it appears over time that he ended up dismissing Hamas completely, which is exactly what people want him to do. Is he insincere? Well, that's the problem, isn't it. But how do we know what he thinks if we don't believe his words? How long are we supposed to maintain our suspicions?

Except his denial of Hamas happened in June, his backtracking of it happened in August, are we to believe that his viewpoint radically changed in less than two months? Or is it more reasonable that with the PR outcry that has happened over his radical statements, combined with the heat he was taking over the mosque, he decided to change his statements, not his views, to prevent more PR damage? Of course it is possible he changed his view in only two months, but it seems FAR more likely that he didn't change his view, but decided to make less controversial statements to prevent further damage.

Well, to me, you are setting up a false conflict between two unrealistically simple ideas: either it's the "Evil U.S. VS Radicals" or "Good U.S. VS Radicals". The U.S. could never do something so atrocious that I would side with Al Qaeda on any issue, because Al Qaeda is, considering it's abilities, more malevolent, more atrocious than the U.S. Nothing pitable about extreme Islam is enough to suddenly make the U.S. the bad guy - their vices aren't really connected. The U.S. could not kill enough Iraqi civilians to make Al Qaeda favorable, because Al Qaeda's vices are their own, and the U.S.'s wrongs do not make Al Qaeda right. I think you're underestimating the cognitive processes of liberals. To suggest that Al Qaeda's murderous mission is somehow justified by the U.S.-inflicted Iraqi civilian death toll is a Te Quoque fallacy; two wrongs do not make a right, and it's not a fallacy that I fall for, and if we remember not to succumb to this fallacy, we can be discerning individuals while not being enemy sympathizers.

And of course it should be pointed out that Liberals forget that death toll does not take in how many were killed by the terrorists, who are known for targeting massive crowds of people, nor does the body count differentiate between civilians and terrorists. Yet Liberals seem to forget that in a effort to paint the US as bad.

It is quite obvious the U.S. is more sophisticated, more tolerant, and "the good guy". I'm not trying to turn the whole thing on it's head and glorfy Al Qaeda by holding the U.S. accountable for civilian deaths. In fact, I am showing love for my country by showing concern for the state of its soul. I hold people I love accountable for the things they do. If indeed the U.S. has been killing way too many civilians, it is a noble effort to try and reform that, and it is a daring effort to speak it. Honestly, I am not Islamic, I am one of those Californian progressive mutts, so really, my point of view is, Islam needs to focus on defeating extreme Islam; I need to focus on helping my country in any way possible. My way of helping, and it is probably a morose way, is to contribute to the whistleblowing effort to make sure we do things right.

Yet one has to ask, are those deaths a necessary evil? Yes there have been civilian deaths in the Iraq war, but say when things began to turn south in 04 and 05 and greater troops and fighting was needed. Do you honestly believe leaving Iraq in a civil war between al Qaeda and Iran would have led to less deaths than the current situation of Iraq in peace? On the same token, the Taliban has been on a murderous rampage in the areas it controls, killing people that dare oppose it, and even throwing acid on the faces of school girls who dare to get a education, would there be less deaths if the US were to leave? Of course not.

That is where so many Liberals or Progressives seem to be ignorant of reality. It would be like saying "Well there are alot of civilian deaths trying to drive Nazis out of France, so lets reform the war and speak out against it." Of course that belief in the end would have left to far more civilian deaths, but they seem unable to look at the alternative.

And that brings me to the fact that besides what I have added, I'm starting to agree with more and more of what you're saying. There is a solid black and white in this war and it is important to focus on that. When I mentioned shades of grey, it was not to say "oh, I'm somewhere between Al Qaeda and and the U.S.", it was to say that there are multiple dimensions of meticulousness we should apply to this conflict in order to achieve actual justice. In other words, in our one-sidedness, critisizing that one side is still an important part of tending to it.

And since I feel this way, I guess that why I can say I feel like I know what Imam Rauf is talking about.

The problem is that in a war against such a evil, that must be wiped out, there really is a one sidedness, you can address your concerns with the U.S. after the war, but right now the focus, all of the focus, must be at defeating al Qaeda, not at making false and idiotic moral equivalencies like what the Imam has done. Right now defeating al Qaeda, defeating radical Islam must be the goal. Because as I have said before, trying to make it "Well the US is bad too" does play right into the radicals hands, it gives legitimacy to their cause, and it makes it that much more harder to defeat them.

 

[TsukiMirage]

The thing I fail to understand about the whole argument against the site is that people act like only Imam and other Muslims are gonna be the only people going to it, Which isn't the case. There's gonna be Christians and Jews there too doing stuff. It's a public place. The idea that they would be using it as a monument to 9/11 is silly, Since at the moment the site of the WTC is more or less a lasting monument to their actions.

As for the Imam himself, I hardly see how the fact that he doesn't automatically agree with everything American makes him bad. Especially when very few people from other countries agree all that much with us. Heck, Many Americans openly and publicly question and criticizes our own government. Does that mean their against us?

Also, On the point of Nazi Germany: The USA attempted to remain neutral in the early parts of WW2. Alot of people were against getting involved in a European war regardless of what the Nazi's were doing. It wasn't til the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan that the USA got fully commented, Not because of anything that the Nazi's themselves were doing.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Except his denial of Hamas happened in June, his backtracking of it happened in August, are we to believe that his viewpoint radically changed in less than two months? Or is it more reasonable that with the PR outcry that has happened over his radical statements, combined with the heat he was taking over the mosque, he decided to change his statements, not his views, to prevent more PR damage? Of course it is possible he changed his view in only two months, but it seems FAR more likely that he didn't change his view, but decided to make less controversial statements to prevent further damage.

And then again, this brings us back to the fact that before all this, he already denounced terrorism of any kind, meaning he supports some ideal of Hamas, but not the actual organization that commits terrorism in the name its cause. But of course, you have issued a psychological ultimatum that categorically pidgeonholes his beliefs, so this is impossible to communicate.

And of course it should be pointed out that Liberals forget that death toll does not take in how many were killed by the terrorists, who are known for targeting massive crowds of people, nor does the body count differentiate between civilians and terrorists. Yet Liberals seem to forget that in a effort to paint the US as bad.

Okay, assumption; that all liberals are ignorant as to the nature of terrorism and how civilians are accidently killed.

Does it even occur to that liberals are not out to sabotage America, and are a necessary component of our social structure? I'm not out to paint the U.S. as bad and I never forgot that the death toll should factor in civilians killed by terrorists. You seem to rant about liberals almost as much Al Qaeda itself. I'm going to bold certain remarks to demonstrate this.

Yet one has to ask, are those deaths a necessary evil? Yes there have been civilian deaths in the Iraq war, but say when things began to turn south in 04 and 05 and greater troops and fighting was needed. Do you honestly believe leaving Iraq in a civil war between al Qaeda and Iran would have led to less deaths than the current situation of Iraq in peace? On the same token, the Taliban has been on a murderous rampage in the areas it controls, killing people that dare oppose it, and even throwing acid on the faces of school girls who dare to get a education, would there be less deaths if the US were to leave? Of course not.

If we cannot help but kill them, then sure they're a necessary evil. That's one of those shades of grey. But for articles like this, which we are seeing all the time:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13540427/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/09/13/civilian-contractor-shot-dead-base-iraq/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30072858/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197880,00.html

When soldiers are tried for killing civilians, that being a valid sign that they didn't have to kill them, then people who decry civilian deaths are absolutely necessary. And man, I'm not so brash as to support the immediate pullout from Iraq.

That is where so many Liberals or Progressives seem to be ignorant of reality. It would be like saying "Well there are alot of civilian deaths trying to drive Nazis out of France, so lets reform the war and speak out against it." Of course that belief in the end would have left to far more civilian deaths, but they seem unable to look at the alternative.

So liberals/progressives are Nazi sympathizers now. They're pre-World War II Britain, praising Hitler?

The problem is that in a war against such a evil, that must be wiped out, there really is a one sidedness, you can address your concerns with the U.S. after the war, but right now the focus, all of the focus, must be at defeating al Qaeda, not at making false and idiotic moral equivalencies like what the Imam has done. Right now defeating al Qaeda, defeating radical Islam must be the goal. Because as I have said before, trying to make it "Well the US is bad too" does play right into the radicals hands, it gives legitimacy to their cause, and it makes it that much more harder to defeat them.

You didn't read a word I said, did you? I have tried as far as I could to meet you in the middle, but this is not a mutual effort, so I can't continue debating with you. Namely your gross mischaracterization of liberals is discouraging me. I would not talk about a conservative the way you trash liberals. However, I learned a lot from this debate, thank you. I think I will wait for TFP's response now.

 

[BigLutz]

And then again, this brings us back to the fact that before all this, he already denounced terrorism of any kind, meaning he supports some ideal of Hamas, but not the actual organization that commits terrorism in the name its cause. But of course, you have issued a psychological ultimatum that categorically pidgeonholes his beliefs, so this is impossible to communicate.

And of course that all depends on if he believes Hamas is actually committing terrorism, his inability to say Hamas is a terrorist organization shows some wavering on that. Because obviously it is a distinction with out a difference, you cannot commit terrorism and not be terrorists.

Okay, assumption; that all liberals are ignorant as to the nature of terrorism and how civilians are accidently killed.

Does it even occur to that liberals are not out to sabotage America, and are a necessary component of our social structure? I'm not out to paint the U.S. as bad and I never forgot that the death toll should factor in civilians killed by terrorists. You seem to rant about liberals almost as much Al Qaeda itself. I'm going to bold certain remarks to demonstrate this.

If we cannot help but kill them, then sure they're a necessary evil. That's one of those shades of grey. But for articles like this, which we are seeing all the time:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13540427/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/09/13/civilian-contractor-shot-dead-base-iraq/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30072858/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197880,00.html

When soldiers are tried for killing civilians, that being a valid sign that they didn't have to kill them, then people who decry civilian deaths are absolutely necessary. And man, I'm not so brash as to support the immediate pullout from Iraq.

And yet are those any more than isolated incidents? You have 150,000 people, which is more than some cities, with up to millions being rotated in and out as tours of duty come to a end. You will have a few bad apples in there, the problem is taking those very few, almost minuscule fraction of people, and using it to damage the entire war effort.

That is where so many Liberals or Progressives seem to be ignorant of reality. It would be like saying "Well there are alot of civilian deaths trying to drive Nazis out of France, so lets reform the war and speak out against it." Of course that belief in the end would have left to far more civilian deaths, but they seem unable to look at the alternative.

So liberals/progressives are Nazi sympathizers now. They're pre-World War II Britain, praising Hitler?

In a round about way of thinking many liberals and progressives are, if you place the death toll over the greater good that will be accomplished by defeating a enemy that is about as bad as Hitler, you run the very real risk of losing the war, and in turn condemning millions of people to life under Nazi/Taliban rule. Again you have to look at the death toll from the current war, as opposed to the death toll that would amount by losing the war and allowing the enemy to have complete and total control.

You didn't read a word I said, did you? I have tried as far as I could to meet you in the middle, but this is not a mutual effort, so I can't continue debating. I learned a lot, thank you. I think I will wait for TFP's response now.

Oh I have read everything you said, but I am trying to explain that there is a time and a place for proper criticism, and that improperly used criticism at the wrong time and wrong place in many ways can help the enemy and damage the overall mission which is to defeat extremism and to free the Afghan and Iraqi people from oppression. I believe we can both agree upon that.

 

[CSolarstorm]

And of course that all depends on if he believes Hamas is actually committing terrorism, his inability to say Hamas is a terrorist organization shows some wavering on that. Because obviously it is a distinction with out a difference, you cannot commit terrorism and not be terrorists.

It is possible that he was cryptically saying that Hamas wasn't a terrorist faction, even though they committed terrorism. After all, his language does not rhetorically put Hamas and terrorism together, just communicates a connection. You may be correct that he is making some sort of exception for Hamas. If so, that would consquently make him an extremist.

And yet are those any more than isolated incidents? You have 150,000 people, which is more than some cities, with up to millions being rotated in and out as tours of duty come to a end. You will have a few bad apples in there, the problem is taking those very few, almost minuscule fraction of people, and using it to damage the entire war effort.

Even as separate incidents, they build up. And, see my next statement.

In a round about way of thinking many liberals and progressives are, if you place the death toll over the greater good that will be accomplished by defeating a enemy that is about as bad as Hitler, you run the very real risk of losing the war, and in turn condemning millions of people to life under Nazi/Taliban rule. Again you have to look at the death toll from the current war, as opposed to the death toll that would amount by losing the war and allowing the enemy to have complete and total control.

Such is the reality of any war. Many liberals and progressives are, by nature, dreamers, wanting to progress, and don't want to go to war at all, so the greater good is by definition somewhat not popular with liberals.

Oh I have read everything you said, but I am trying to explain that there is a time and a place for proper criticism, and that improperly used criticism at the wrong time and wrong place in many ways can help the enemy and damage the overall mission which is to defeat extremism and to free the Afghan and Iraqi people from oppression. I believe we can both agree upon that.

Criticism in the homeland in many forms and many ways is protected and democratic, but I do not support, say, the insensitive ******* who protest at soldiers' funerals, and I would seriously question anything akin to Vietnam protests, like putting yourself in front of mobilized armies or disobeying direct military orders. So we can agree that there are many forms of criticism that do indeed damage the war effort. I don't agree with making with making it politically incorrect to question the war effort, however. But I appreciate coming to some sort of compromise, and that's really why I replied again.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Sensitivity

Phooey. I should never have left the Debate Forum for this long.

Namely your gross mischaracterization of liberals is discouraging me. I would not talk about a conservative the way you trash liberals. However, I learned a lot from this debate, thank you. I think I will wait for TFP's response now.

SunnyC, since you specifically mentioned that you were waiting for a response from me, I sincerely ask your forgiveness. I should have responded sooner. (I hope you will also be able to forgive me for responding to some of these statements out of order.)
But on another note, BigLutz really hasn’t mischaracterized liberals.

Don't start with the semantics game. I'll just redirect you to: "So now you reject the mosque not because he's a radical Imam, but because he was being a butthead?"

Not even close. I reject the notion that we must simply accept that a person is being sensitive, kind, tolerant, etc. because he clearly isn't. Those statements clearly indicate something off about the Imam. I will explain this very clearly at the end of the post.

And, I'm sorry you view the changing of the name to Park 51 that way. I don't believe you would view anything they could do in your favor as respect for your comfort. Even if they moved the mosque, by now, it would probably just be viewed as another way to "escape controversy".

No, that would be the exact sensitive thing to do. Sensitivity cannot be forced.

No, TFP, your interpretation of the Imam's beliefs, whose beliefs are just like that of a common nonviolent radical liberal, (which don't quite get as much attention as a radical liberal Muslim, no assumption made toward you in specific), that is the implausible interpretation.

It saddens me that you think his explicit statement can't possibly be incorrect. It really seems like you think, "He says he's peace-loving, so, he must be." I do not need to make strained, excessively-implausible interpretations of his statements to oppose this project.

And now for an intermission to respond to Tim the turtle (even though he probably won't see this):

Except the difference is that I don't care about those things enough to attempt to stop them from happening! You are actively campaigning (well, debating) to have those "pointless, mean, insensitive or otherwise stupid things" prevented. If you care enough about it to want it to stop, then surely doing through legal means is the best option. Or are all your posts in the abortion thread simply you asking nicely for people to please stop doing those nasty things, but a change in the law to prevent it is going too far?

Because clearly I believe many unborn children will die simply due to the construction of the Mosque-N-More, right?

No, but you wish they would. You want public outcry to prevent from exercising their frst amendment rights. So why have those rights in the first place?

That's the thing, you tell me. From where I'm standing, I don't think your arguments hold water unless you support a change in first amendment rights. I don't think you can simultaneously hold the belief that people can build a building of worship wherever they want, and also the belief that they should not build in a place where they might cause offense.

Yeah, sorry Tim. You proved here that you simply do not understand America. We have the freedom to do insensitive things. Apparently people have the right to rap about committing violent acts against police officers. (I don't have a source for that unfortunately; maybe Eminem or Ludacris?) If I suggest that people should not make such Constitutionally-protected statements, it is not the same as wanting the Constitution altered.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programing:

Of course, how can we be sure anything Imam Rauf or his initiative ever says is true. We can never find proof that he's not an extremist because we can't trust his words or his actions due to the fact that he's an extremist. See the circular logic here?

I never said he was radical. I said he could be radical. If he is making statements that do indeed sound radical, then why can we not question whether he is truly being the ultra-sensitive guy he claims he is? Some of his statements can most definitely be described as questionable. "Highly questionable" is probably a better way to word it.

Let me explain. I once read a newspaper article by a liberal person regarding ACORN. This columnist was black, and (in other articles) expressed belief that quite a bit of the opposition to Obama, and even ACORN, was racist in nature. He started the article off by saying that ACORN is the subject of a witch hunt. His conclusion? When you are the subject of a witch hunt, you need to stop hanging out with witches! He believed that the footage gathered by the undercover amateurs didn’t actually represent ACORN, but that it was just one branch, "hanging out with witches," in his words. He was not happy.

In a similar way, this imam has made statements that are insensitive, that make it easy to question whether he is truly the peace-loving moderate Muslim that he claims to be. If he is sensitive, he needs to stop hanging out with witches.

However, we should explore all the possibilities. I can think of a few possible explanations for this Imam's seemingly radical statements:

(1) He is a genuinely sensitive guy who tries hard to build bridges. However, he has moments when he is not being careful enough, and so in these moments he sounds very insensitive (perhaps extremist).

(2a) He is not genuinely sensitive, but simply tries to appear so. Thus at times his words seem insensitive (perhaps extremist) because he inadvertently lets slip his actually-insulting views, possibly without even realizing it.

(2b) He tries to appear sensitive most of the time, but on some occasions he deliberately makes insensitive (perhaps extremist) statements because he knows people like you and Fused will offer ;083; Farfetch'd explanations to defend him, thereby showing Muslims that America is becoming an absolute pushover.

Of these, (1) is the best possibility. But it is also the least likely because people who serve on foreign relations counsels should be educated in choosing their words carefully. Does he not know that he cannot afford to slip up and say something that sounds radical?

Of course he knows. To suspect that these multiple insensitive-(perhaps-extremist)-sounding statements are simply mistakes is to challenge his credentials as a sensitive peace-loving guy. If you were to challenge them, I wouldn't need to. That leaves (2a) and (2b) as the most likely. Of these, there doesn't appear to be much way to show one to be more likely than the other.

So my conclusion?

He is acting exactly like a peace-loving dude unless you are purposefully looking for a way to see him in a different light.

The above is absolutely false. He has given us plenty of reason to doubt that he is the sensitive bridge-builder he claims to be. He has even given us enough reason to wonder if he may be an extremist. You have to be purposely avoiding the clear implications of his statements and actions to miss that.

This debate probably won't die with this post. But I have to point out that I've said most everything I need to say. And BigLutz has thoroughly shredded the arguments of the Mosque-N-More defenders. And I've helped in a small(er) way. The people behind the Mosque-N-More need to consider showing more sensitivity by building elsewhere.

 

[CSolarstorm]

SunnyC, since you specifically mentioned that you were waiting for a response from me, I sincerely ask your forgiveness. I should have responded sooner. (I hope you will also be able to forgive me for responding to some of these statements out of order.)

I will respond out of order too, so I don't blame you.

You don't have to apologize. This topic is kind of going off the radar anyway. I've mostly said everything I'm going to say too, and by now this is an empty cause for me and in general...the thing is being built. Best of luck, still, for the cause of moving it.

Take a look at the design. An ivory hexagram pattern? Even I have to admit that's creepy. Looks like something from ABC's V. Or something my university would build. ^_^

Many think the design is a slap in the face to Jews because it refers to the Star of David; personally I think that the hexagram is so widely used and ancient in many religions that it's a pretty good symbol for religious unity...on the other side of the coin I would say that it's the worst choice for Christindom, Judiasm, or Islam because of it's polytheistic pagan roots. Either way, it's hard to say for certain what the design really means at all because the hexagram means so many things.

But on another note, BigLutz really hasn’t mischaracterized liberals.

Yeah he has. BigLutz was outright calling liberals ignorant idiots almost every post and I held my ground until I finally snapped back like five posts later when he finally got to connecting them to enemy sympathizers. You snapped in a similar way when Tim connected to your beliefs in the abortion thread to this topic and implied a correlation. Are you feeling me here?

Especially since the foundation of your argument, yours and BigLutz is sensitivity, it only makes sense to make effort to fight your opponent without being rude to them.

Not even close. I reject the notion that we must simply accept that a person is being sensitive, kind, tolerant, etc. because he clearly isn't. Those statements clearly indicate something off about the Imam. I will explain this very clearly at the end of the post.

It saddens me that you think his explicit statement can't possibly be incorrect. It really seems like you think, "He says he's peace-loving, so, he must be."

You don't need to be sad. That's not what I think. I'm making a common sense point, that, what he says is more veritable evidence than what he doesn't say. In other words, when he frankly says "I do not condone terrorists" that logically should be a more credible statement in his defense. I never said he couldn't lie. But the his explicit statements weigh more than the simple belief that they could be wrong.

No, that would be the exact sensitive thing to do. Sensitivity cannot be forced.

Isn't that what the protestors are trying to do, force his sensitivity?

I do not need to make strained, excessively-implausible interpretations of his statements to oppose this project.

You can oppose anything you want, it's your constitutional freedom. And despite you asserting that over and over, I'm not contending your ability to oppose or your trying to relocate Park51. In fact I'm openly proud whenever someone uses their right to protest, including the protests against the Imam. I'm only arguing for the case that it shouldn't be moved.

I never said he was radical. I said he could be radical. If he is making statements that do indeed sound radical, then why can we not question whether he is truly being the ultra-sensitive guy he claims he is? Some of his statements can most definitely be described as questionable. "Highly questionable" is probably a better way to word it.

If you're going to demote your allegations from radical to highly questionable, that just makes him less suspicious even on your terms. I'm not saying you can't question him. My angle in this debate is that despite all the questions you won't unearth anything except a profound sympathy for his own people, and that doesn't make a complementary hatred of our people an inherent risk.

Let me explain. I once read a newspaper article by a liberal person regarding ACORN. This columnist was black, and (in other articles) expressed belief that quite a bit of the opposition to Obama, and even ACORN, was racist in nature. He started the article off by saying that ACORN is the subject of a witch hunt. His conclusion? When you are the subject of a witch hunt, you need to stop hanging out with witches! He believed that the footage gathered by the undercover amateurs didn’t actually represent ACORN, but that it was just one branch, "hanging out with witches," in his words. He was not happy.

In a similar way, this imam has made statements that are insensitive, that make it easy to question whether he is truly the peace-loving moderate Muslim that he claims to be. If he is sensitive, he needs to stop hanging out with witches.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand the explanation. ACORN was legitimately debunked as corrupted. I don't sympathize with columnist.

However, we should explore all the possibilities. I can think of a few possible explanations for this Imam's seemingly radical statements:

(1) He is a genuinely sensitive guy who tries hard to build bridges. However, he has moments when he is not being careful enough, and so in these moments he sounds very insensitive (perhaps extremist).

He could be similarly a genuinely sensitive guy who tries hard to build bridges, and purposefully says insensitive things. Just think about it; when you go to a psychologist to help you cope with you're problems, you're hiring them to say something you didn't realize or don't want to realize, because if they didn't, then there would be no way to change. To build a bridge, a truly impressive and effective bridge, something paradigm has to change, something has to be said that nobody wants to hear.

Of these, (1) is the best possibility. But it is also the least likely because people who serve on foreign relations counsels should be educated in choosing their words carefully. Does he not know that he cannot afford to slip up and say something that sounds radical?

I thought it was "highly questionable" instead of radical now. -_-;

The opposite could also be true. Because he is in foreign relations, he has substantially more influence and power to say something new and highly questionable. Just look at Merkel in Germany saying that "multiculturalism in Germany has failed". That was gutsy of her and not everyone wanted to here it, and I'm sure it appeared insensitive to Turks in Germany and many minorities all over the world. But she still said it, and there were people, including you, and me, who agreed with it and benefitted from the paradigm-shifting statement.

(2a) He is not genuinely sensitive, but simply tries to appear so. Thus at times his words seem insensitive (perhaps extremist) because he inadvertently lets slip his actually-insulting views, possibly without even realizing it.

(2b) He tries to appear sensitive most of the time, but on some occasions he deliberately makes insensitive (perhaps extremist) statements because he knows people like you and Fused will offer ;083; Farfetch'd explanations to defend him, thereby showing Muslims that America is becoming an absolute pushover.

I'm sorry, but where did "we are showing Muslims America becoming a pushover" come into this? The only support that America is "being pushed" is the 70% of American citizens opposed to the construction of this mosque. But that percentage only amassed after Obama mentioned it; and I suspect now that it's going under the radar and fading into the past it's going to go back down anyway.

The citizen polls aren't the ones making a difference anyway. The factors making a difference in this situation are

a) the rules regarding the building; that's on the Imam's side already.
b) the active protestors, that are on both sides, arguing for and against the mosque
c) the 9/11 families, again, that are on both sides, arguing for and against the mosque
d) political and journalistic support, on both sides

So I highly believe that it's America fighting with America here - it truly is the sound of one hand clapping.

Of course he knows. To suspect that these multiple insensitive-(perhaps-extremist)-sounding statements are simply mistakes is to challenge his credentials as a sensitive peace-loving guy. If you were to challenge them, I wouldn't need to. That leaves (2a) and (2b) as the most likely. Of these, there doesn't appear to be much way to show one to be more likely than the other.

So let me get this straight. When he says something that is insensitive, it is either a mistake, or deliberately malicious. (It can't possibly be deliberately beneficial, like Merkel's statement.) If he makes mistakes, that discredits his credentials somehow. (It doesn't; every politically figure makes mistakes and it doesn't damage their credentials.) So for me to say he makes mistakes, even though I'm not, that is sabotaging my own argument.

The above is absolutely false. He has given us plenty of reason to doubt that he is the sensitive bridge-builder he claims to be. He has even given us enough reason to wonder if he may be an extremist. You have to be purposely avoiding the clear implications of his statements and actions to miss that.

His explicit statements are stronger and clearer than the implications. Implications can be patched together and said to be true simply on basis of suspicion, but don't satisfy the burden of truth.

And what are those implications, anyway? In your effort to stop calling him radical or taper your suspicions (which you didn't stay loyal to, really) you didn't actually restate any of the allegations against him.

- He said that the United States was responsible for more Muslim deaths than Al Qaeda is for American deaths. If you discount non-American native Muslim deaths, and add Al Qaeda deaths to the Muslim deaths, this has the potential to be a true statement. As such, many Americans actually believe this statement and want the wars to end. Therefore, it is not wholly an un-American statement.

- He sympathized with the views of Hamas and rejected Zionism. So does the Muslim club at my college, and they do it in a civil non-sabotaging way. Also, he clearly specified he does not condone terorrism, and said straight out that he does not literally support Hamas.

- He said that America is partially responsible for 9/11. A high percentage of the actual American people want the investigation into 9/11 opened again. Plus, the racial tension toward Muslims fueled the Muslim racism toward Americans (animosity breeds animosity) and therefore can be connected to the motivation for terrorism in general, and in doing that, the Imam can help temper the racial tension that contributes to terrorism. His job is to help make sure another 9/11 doesn't happen, and clearly says it rejects 9/11 by having such a memorial to the victims of 9/11 and a non-fundamental Muslim philosophy.

- He also said that he believes the Constitution and the practices of the United States more accurately reflect Muslim ideals. What Muslim extremist/radical/man who is highly questionable believes that?

You can cut out things he says and indicate implications, but until you find an explicit manifestation of these implications, face value is the biggest evidence in this debate.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Yeah he has. In the same way Tim the Turtle mischaracterized conservatives by grouping this issue with abortion.

I was only referring to TFP with that post, a member who has clearly shown he dislikes abortion in the, uhm, abortion thread :/

 

[CSolarstorm]

I wasn't trying to critisize you, Tim, I was trying to identify with TFP's reaction to your post. I know you were not saying so about all consevatives. I wrote it wrongly - I edited it to reflect what I was trying to say in a better way.

 

[Ace Trainer Alex]

I know it has been quite a few months since this has been posted it, but I just heard the news today regarding something almost identical to this.

Just outside Chicago, south of where I live, a group of people are planning to build a mosque/community center. And, like before, people are opposing this. Both zoning and religion has come into question.

http://chicago.lokality.com/news/zoning-battles-brew-over-mosque-plans

 

[Marbi Z]

Maybe it would be okay to build a Mosque elseware but please... Anywhere but Ground Zero! Not where the Twin Towers were hit by that very religion.

 

[11DBHK]

Maybe it would be okay to build a Mosque elseware but please... Anywhere but Ground Zero! Not where the Twin Towers were hit by that very religion.

yeah it kinda seems in bad taste, maybe i'm just paranoid...then again weve been threatened by wars and the like before we have reason to be a bit wary of thing like that...

 

[Ace Trainer Alex]

Still, this new one is being built in a more suburban area in Illinois. Far from Ground Zero (though I think the other one should be built, but that is just my opinion).

 

[Tyrant Tar]

Maybe it would be okay to build a Mosque elseware but please... Anywhere but Ground Zero! Not where the Twin Towers were hit by that very religion.

Don't blame the whole religion for a few bad eggs.

 

[Dr. Leggs]

Maybe it would be okay to build a Mosque elseware but please... Anywhere but Ground Zero! Not where the Twin Towers were hit by that very religion.

Seeing as it isn't at Ground Zero and the Islamic sect this mosque worships is practically the opposite end of the spectrum of those of the groups who claim responsibility for the 9-11 attacks, I don't see an issue.

 

[Vermehlo_Steele]

I know it has been quite a few months since this has been posted it, but I just heard the news today regarding something almost identical to this.

Just outside Chicago, south of where I live, a group of people are planning to build a mosque/community center. And, like before, people are opposing this. Both zoning and religion has come into question.

http://chicago.lokality.com/news/zoning-battles-brew-over-mosque-plans

MY EYES!! wow that article is hard to read with the text's colour.

I'm not getting into this debate, I did when it was fresh (on a different forum) and was burned, so no. But, I have to wonder, if Muslims keep getting mosque sites rejected from time to time, would that be counter productive in easing supposed cultural cringe? Yes, near Ground Zero is an unfortunately tense place for a mosque, at present. If a Muslim community was the site of an attack by Christian fundamentalists, I would get the displeasure of several at having church being built nearby the site. I digress.

But if this repeats sometime rejection of Mosques and public uproar of more people than the usual noisy minority occurs over and over as outlined in the Chicago article, I imagine more than a few Muslims would be frustrated and a little bitter (not terroristty stuff, just unimpressed with the majority's wisdom) at mainstream society.

 

[BigLutz]

- He said that the United States was responsible for more Muslim deaths than Al Qaeda is for American deaths. If you discount non-American native Muslim deaths, and add Al Qaeda deaths to the Muslim deaths, this has the potential to be a true statement. As such, many Americans actually believe this statement and want the wars to end. Therefore, it is not wholly an un-American statement.

Actually it is one that is supportive of al Qaeda as it frames America as the worse of two evils. His logic or lack there of in the statement is incorrect. He made the statement based on the US backing the UN sanctions on Iraq. However it is now known that the food and supplies the UN was supplying to Iraq was being used for Saddam's own purposes and not for the humanitarian causes it originally was designed for. If the Imam wishes to push this lie, especially so close to the WTC site, it only further spits in the face of this country.

- He sympathized with the views of Hamas and rejected Zionism. So does the Muslim club at my college, and they do it in a civil non-sabotaging way. Also, he clearly specified he does not condone terorrism, and said straight out that he does not literally support Hamas.

He doesn't reject them either...

- He said that America is partially responsible for 9/11. A high percentage of the actual American people want the investigation into 9/11 opened again. Plus, the racial tension toward Muslims fueled the Muslim racism toward Americans (animosity breeds animosity) and therefore can be connected to the motivation for terrorism in general, and in doing that, the Imam can help temper the racial tension that contributes to terrorism. His job is to help make sure another 9/11 doesn't happen, and clearly says it rejects 9/11 by having such a memorial to the victims of 9/11 and a non-fundamental Muslim philosophy.

Okay first his views on 9/11 are not part of the Conspiracy theories. He subscribes to the just as idiotic view of blowback, that the terrorist attacked us because of our role in the Mid East for the past decade or so. What he subsequently ignores is that Osama Bin Laden began to hate us because his pride was hurt, he offered to protect Saudi Arabia, and they rejected his help in favor of the U.S. during the Gulf War. It's about wounded pride, THAT and in combination that after the Afghan/Soviet war he believed he was a giant killer.

That is one thing many people ignore, Osama wanted the U.S. to invade, he wanted to fight them, because he believed that he could defeat them just as he defeated the Soviet Union. He only saw us as the next biggest target out there, and a stepping stone toward world wide islamic rule.

Seeing as it isn't at Ground Zero and the Islamic sect this mosque worships is practically the opposite end of the spectrum of those of the groups who claim responsibility for the 9-11 attacks, I don't see an issue.

It's as close to Ground Zero as you can get, and infact apparently it was a major selling point as the group was looking for a place as close to Ground Zero as possible. Also the Imam responsible has said some pretty idiotic/questionable things in the past.

 

[Night_Walker]

I can't believe this nonsense is still running...

Lutz the fact remains that they're not violating planning laws, there is already a Muslim prayer space in the area, and it's their land - issue closed.
If you want to argue about what their religion stands for - which strikes me as what you're really arguing about - go talk to the average Muslim, instead of listening to those loonies who claim they can commit things forbidden in their holy book.

 

[BigLutz]

I can't believe this nonsense is still running...

Lutz the fact remains that they're not violating planning laws, there is already a Muslim prayer space in the area, and it's their land - issue closed.
If you want to argue about what their religion stands for - which strikes me as what you're really arguing about - go talk to the average Muslim, instead of listening to those loonies who claim they can commit things forbidden in their holy book.

Never said they are violating any laws, if they were then the place would never have gotten this far anyway. But just because something is not legally wrong, does not mean it is not morally wrong. And this building, built so close to Ground Zero for effect, by this Imam, is morally wrong. Period.

 

[Night_Walker]

Never said they are violating any laws, if they were then the place would never have gotten this far anyway. But just because something is not legally wrong, does not mean it is not morally wrong. And this building, built so close to Ground Zero for effect, by this Imam, is morally wrong. Period.

No Lutz, this isn't a case of moral right and wrong vs legal right and wrong. This is a case of people who're opposed to Islam asserting a certain interpretation of what's going on is the incontrovertible truth and it simply doesn't square with the facts.

As far as I can see this is just a story being used by the same people who want to stop other Mosques being built in the US and stopping spires being put up on them in Europe, for whatever daft reason (fear of Islam cause it's a different religion, fear of Islam because they believe this nonsense about how 9/11 is sanctioned by Islam).

After all there's already a proper Muslim prayer space in the area, that pre-dates the World Trade Centre towers, should they be shut down too?