Machjo

She might not be well known herself, but she is the one who organized the public protests initially, and the protests are what have motivated many to join in on the bandwagon. It's like saying that because a person might not know William Blake, there is no way he could have come across his famous poem 'the Tyger' or been influenced by it. Lack of knowledge of Blake as a person does not prevent a person from being influenced by his poems. The same applies here. One needs not know Geller to have been influenced by her. Let me ask, how many here would have been aware of all the opposition had it not been for the media having picked up on Geller's blog, bringing her on show, thus getting her known by Jihad Watch, willing to fund her so she could establish 'Stop Islamization of America' which she could then use to finance public protests, provide loud-speaker equipment, advertise, etc.? Let's not forget, even Fox News was supportive of the mosque until they brought Geller on to be interviewed (and even then they sometimes criticized her. Yikes!). You might not know Geller, but you do know her organized protests in NYC, just as one might not know Blake but still know 'The Tyger'.

Just look at the ralies in NYC. In nearly all videos, you'll see Geller, or a sing of SIOA (Stop Islamization of America), with all the loudspeakers and such likely being paid by the funding Jihad Watch provides. Sure there is an independent internet movement, and sure there are some who've likely just tagged along at the rallies. But let's face it, on the media Geller is the one who managed to get this thing off the ground. She's the 'brains' (I know it makes me giggle too) behind the operation, at least at the organizational level.

How was it predictable? At first, the local Muslim community consulted with the local government, the local Jewish, Christian, and other religious communities, and the'd all given them their blessing. Then they'd finally announced it publicly, and the media reaction, even from Fox! was overwhelming support or at worst indifference. It's only later, once conspiracy theorist Pam Geller, owner of the blog Atlas Shrugs and founder of 'Stop Islamization of America', with funding from Jihad Watch, finally raised a movement surrounding it, that it really became a major media issue. So until Pam Geller came onto the scene, after the decision had already been presented favourably by even Fox News of all possible supporters, how the hell could that local Muslim community have seen this coming? Well, then again, they should have known the country is full of Gellers.

That's very difficult to understand for some: "We're not saying they shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque there, but merely that the government should tell them to build it elsewhere:. Or this gem: "We're not telling the government to tell the Muslims to move their mosque elsewhere; we just want to harass the hell out of the local Muslims until they get sick and tired of us and finally do move it elsewhere." If I'm missing some third category, let me know.

Precisely.

Also, why aren't they protesting vegetarian restaurants, when we consider that all they sell is halal food!

Of course immigration plays a role. What I'm saying is that Algeria was a French colony only in the beginning, later to be reclassified as a French overseas department, thus making all Algerian territory French territory, and thus all who were born in Algeria French citizens. Many of them went to France during that period, most French muslims of today having been born in France. So, what are you suggesting, that they all be sent back to Algeria? Now if yu're bolde enough to comment in this thread, then I'll have to assume you know about the derogatorily-named 'pieds-noirs', Frenchmen and women who'd moved to Algeria in large numbers, many of whom chose to remain in Algeria after indepence, with their children born after independence having Algerian citizenship only. Yet Algeria has accepted them in spite of the fact that many mainland Frenchmen of the time called them 'pied noirs'. So, should France and Algeria arrange a swap or what? You complain about the 'Islamization' of France. You are aware aren't you that Algeria is also struggling with Francization, with French culture having a significant role in its history? It goes both ways. Why so silent over Francization in Algeria?

You don't know your history, do you. Though Algeria was first a French colony, for a period of time it had actually become a French department, an overseas territory and extension of France's borders, with all Algerians being French by birth. For this reason, all Algerians born prior to Algeria's separation from France remained French citizens. This is part of the reason for France's large Muslim comunity today. It has more to do with marriage and children than immigration now; those Algeriens had gone to France long ago. Now as bad as French colonization of Algeria was, I actually applaud France for at least making Algerians their equals rather than second-class citizens. I'm still not excusing France's imperialism of course, but merely saying that at least they recognized the moral dilemma of making some Frenchmen 'more equal than others', and acted on it accordingly. Now I'm sure some will say 'that' was a mistake. Well, 'what' was a mistake? The colonization of Algeria or granting Algerians equality with the 'mainlanders in France? I'd answer that yes, colonizing Algeria was indeed a mistake. Had France not colonized Algeria in the first place, it would not be having these problems today. That said, once colonization was done though, then I'd say granting equality for all Frenchmen, whether mainlander or colonist, was a moral imperative. Now yes, they are paying the price. If they did not want this problem in the first place, then they should have thought about that before going out and colonizing the world.

Prefering a vegan diet myself, far be it from me to defend any unnecessary killing of animals. That said, according to the research alluded to in English translation here, from the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany: http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm Which in its turn is referenced in a German federal judgement referred to in English translatin here: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20020115_1bvr178399en.html "The slaughter in the form of ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to the EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions. During the experiments with captive bolt stunning no indications could be found for proscribing this method for calves. For sheep, however, there were in parts severe reactions both to the bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli. A proof of the reliable effectiveness of captive bolt stunning could not be provided using the methods applied." So it would seem that if the concern is with the humane slaughter of animals, then the Islamic method is in fact less painful than the comonly used method in Germany and elsewhere. And all the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Humane Society International have to say about it is: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X6909E/x6909e00.HTM "the animals that are slaughtered according to kosher and halal should be securely restrained, particularly the head and neck, before cutting the throat" as "movements (during slaughter) results in a poor cut, bad bleeding, slow loss of consciousness, if at all, and pain." Of course as a vegan I'd say that unless you do not have access to a vegan diet, you should not sloughter animals period. But, if one must, then it would appear that in fact the Islamic and Jewish methods are in fact less painful that other commonly used methods.

Interesting how food has now become a symbol of national identity in France all of a sudden. If a vegetarian restaurant refuses to sell pork, no problem. But if a burger restaurant refuses to, suddenly national identity is threatened?

And "some hate" doesn't equal "hate". It's just a little hate, not a lot. Same with "some bigotry" versus "bigotry". "Some bigotry" means just a little bigotry, you know, just a smattering of it sprinkled on top for flavour, nothing overwhelming.

... but the problem is, 'those people' are dead and (possibly) living in a cave in Afghanistan, plotting attacks against the US and its Saudi and other allies.

... and why would it hurt them if they don't associate the local Muslim community with the terrorists in any way?

What I got is that they should pull the plug on it because they happen to share the same religion, at least in name, as those who'd flown the planes into the buildings on 9/11. The difference lies in that had there not been any protest, I would not have seen any problem whatsoever with building the mosque there, unless of course there had already been a movement prior to save that building. Clearly the protest is about Islam and Muslims and not just the mosque itself. So I can argue that I'm not opposed to the mosque being built there in principle, but rather only as a consequence of the protests so as to bring about peace. That's very different from the reasons the protesters have.

She's the one who initially organized these protests. I'm sure many have not heard of her; they'd heard the protests and so jumped on the bandwagon, oblivious of who started the whole thing and how the whole thing started.

Yes, as I'd mentioned earlier. But notice the reason I think they should have puled the plug on the project and the conditions under which they should pull the plug: 1. Reasons: They'd obviously misjudged public prejudices. They can't be blamed for not being fully cognizant of the extent of these prejudices initially (after all, they're not mind-readers and everyone seemed to support them, from city council to the local religious communities to all the major news networks including Fox News). However, once these prejudices became apparent, then yes, they should have offered to be bought out at a fair price. In other words, it was a bad idea not because they happen to call themselves by the same religion as the people who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11, but rather because many Americans associate them with those terrorists. 2. conditions: Seeing that they were misled by so many initially to believe that they were accepted by their non-Muslim compatriots, and that this may have led them to already make a contractual or monetary commitment to the project, certainly they should have no obligation to bow out without fair compensation from those who want them to leave in the first place. In other words, the opposition should put their money where their mouths are.

Oh, and just a note about 'Muslim Armies'... To say Hitler was inspired by Islam is ludicrous. Muslims were not necessarily suppressed, but their freedom of religion was still restricted. Had he been inspired by Islam, he would have certainly glorified it, no?

Below is where I see the local Muslims in NYC went wrong. I'd say that initially they did everything right. What likely happened is that as the local Muslim community grew, they had to find more space to expand. They'd come across the building two blocks from ground zero, it was for sale at a reasonable price, and so why not buy it? Some in the community likely raised concerns that owing to their religion, they might be associated with the terrorists of 9/11 if they built so close to Ground Zero, and so just to play it safe, they'd decided to consult with the local city council and other local religious communities to test the waters. Getting the blessings of City Council and various local religious communities, they figured their fears were unfounded, and so went along with the project. Now this is where I see their first mistake: they'd decided to announce it publicly (though granted it might have been learnt by the general public anyway). They got positive responses from all the mainstream news media, including Fox News. This likely led them to believe that the community truly did not associate them with the actions of the 9/11 terrorists and that they truly were fully accepted as real Americans like any other. Then things began to change. Pamella Geller got wind of the project and whipped up a storm on her blog Atlas Shrugs, and with great success. This is where I see the local Muslim community's second mistake. Once it had realized that it had truly misjudged things, they should have pulled the plug on the project at that stage.; and if it had already made commitments to the project, then offer Geller's crowd to buy them out in fair compensation, and do it publicly, offering whoever so wishes to buy them out at fair compensation for all losses, or to give them an equivalent space nearby. Had they done that, they would have thrown the ball squarely into Geller's court. This is where I see NYC's local Muslim community's two crucial mistakes. And where I see Geller's mistake is in putting the local Muslim community into a corner, making them feel like they must now stand their ground or lose face. Had she been serious about the preserving that building and not just ranting about Islam, she could easily have collected funds from Jihad Watch and other such organizations, approach the local Muslim community discretely, express her concerns, and offer to buy them out. By doing so behind closed doors, she would not have forced them into a position of having to lose face, and so would likely have succeeded. The way she went about it tells me her primary concern was not preserving that building, but taking tis as an opportunity to trash Muslims publicly.

OK, I stand corrected on that one.

Yeah, I guess you could look at it that way too I suppose. So then the concern should not be with Americanizing Islam, but more specifically have Muslims live up to the spiritual teachings of their religion, just as Christians should live up to the teachings of their religion, etc.

And you have to watch the second video on that last link. Hitler raised Muslim armies?

And now she's saying the supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque want to build it in celebration of a victory over America: http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/pam-geller-insists-she-loves-muslims Even Fox News challenges her on it!

It's useful to note the genesis of the mosque controversy itself: Pamella Geller. She has a blog called Atlas Shrugs; she founded an organisation called 'Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), and she herself has admitted to receiving funding for her cause by Jihad Watch. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/39097 And there you have it in a nutshell. Nothing to do with Islamophobia of course.

Nation of Islam is a Muslim version of the KKK of sorts.

So what's the issue then if Muslims are fully integrated into US society. If Americans continue to distinguish between Muslim Americans and other Americans, then clearly they are not fully Americanised yet in the minds of Americans.