Machjo

I don't think he's trying to 'Americanize' Islam, but rather to simply encourage Muslims to actually live up to the standards of their religion and not fly planes into buildings. That said, it doesn't change the fact that the people who flew the planes into the buildings called themselves Muslim and so we ought to continue to make it clear that we don't welcome Muslims around Ground Zero (except maybe the Muslim police officer who was among the first responders; and even he was a suspect until they'd found his body :angry: ). If they want to pray for their loved ones, they can do it elsewhere too.

"faux islamophobic outrage" You think my outrage is faux? How dare you My Islamophobia is genuine I am genuinely outraged that at least one police officer who died on the scene was Muslim, and that there wre so many Muslim victims. It just makes it harder to keep positive references to Islam away from Ground Zero. We need to make sure that it's never revealed that at least one of the first responders was a practicing Muslim and that there were so many Muslim victims, or it will cause confusion among some of the protesters. It's clear that Is;am was the motive for the attacks, but it certainly wasn't the motive to help others. It must be the case now don't confuse me with facts.

Here's a good story: http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm "Thousands of innocent lives were lost on September 11, 2001, and our hearts and prayers go out to their families and loved ones. For several hundred of the victims of 9/11, grief and sorrow has been compounded by constant suspicion, bias, hatred, and attacks on the faith they hold dear. Imagine being the family of Salman Hamdani. The 23-year-old New York City police cadet was a part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student, and devout Muslim. When he disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials came to his family, seeking him for questioning in relation to the terrorist attacks. They allegedly believed he was somehow involved. His whereabouts were undetermined for over six months, until his remains were finally identified. He was found near the North Tower, with his EMT medical bag beside him, presumably doing everything he could to help those in need. His family could finally rest, knowing that he died the hero they always knew him to be. Or imagine being Baraheen Ashrafi, nine months pregnant with her second child. Her husband, Mohammad Chowdhury, was a waiter at Windows of the World restaurant, on the top floors of Tower One. The morning of September 11, they prayed salaat-l-fajr (the pre-dawn prayer) together, and he went off to work. She never saw him again. Their son, Farqad, was born 48 hours after the attacks -- one of the first 9/11 orphans to be born. In an interview with CTV Canada, she relates that in the months to follow, she mourned for her husband and endured the hostility of some ignorant people around her. "When they saw me ... I'm wearing a scarf. There is a hate look." Or consider Rahma Salie, a passenger on American Airlines #11 that crashed into the North Tower. Rahma, a Muslim of Sri Lankan origin, was traveling with her husband Michael (a convert to Islam) to attend a friend's wedding in California. Rahma was 7 months pregnant with their first child. According to the Independent UK (October 11, 2001), Rahma's name was initially put on an FBI watch list, because her "Muslim-sounding" name was on the passenger manifest, and her travel patterns were similar to those of the hijackers (she was a computer consultant living in Boston). Although her name was eventually removed from the list, several of her family members were barred from taking flights to her memorial service. Her mother, Haleema, said, "I would like everyone to know that she was a Muslim, she is a Muslim and we are victims too, of this tragic incident.”" I'm glad to see that the authorities were not infiltrated by all those sissy liberal bleeding-hearts. It's nice to see we weren't fooled by Mr. Hamdani's police work and medical studies. We did the right thing to suspect him, and should continue to do so. I'm sure he was behind the plots. He must have been. It' good to see that people are letting Mrs. Ashrafi know what they think of her. We should keep up the good work and keep giving that look to her to make sure she knows we associate the murder of her husband with her faith and show we don't appreciate any expression of her faith anywhere near where her husband died. And I'm glad we didn't take risks with the family of Mrs. Salie when they wanted to board planes to go to her funeral. Clearly they could have taken advantage of her death to sneak more explosives on board.

Yeah, but I've decided to switch sides. I do agree that it's highly offensive to have any positive sign of Islam anywhere near Ground Zero. Mentioning that the perpetrators did so in the name of Islam would be highly laudable. But any positive comment, such as references to innocent Muslim victims or Muslim first responders who'd lost their lives is just inappropriate. After all, how are we to truly express our rage against these acts committed in the name of Islam while staring at an epitaph with the names of Muslim victims and first responders before our eyes. It would just make it too confusing. After all, we can't be sending the message that some who call themselves Muslims are bad and others good. It would just be too confusing. Or I suppose we can make a compromise. We could name the names of the Muslims who died on 911 either as victims or first responders risking their lives as long as we don't mention their religion, but should of course mention the religion of the perpetrators to make it clear that there was a relationship between this attack and Islam without any confusing suggestions that some Muslims might have given their lives helping others or as victims themselves.

When the epitaph is built on Ground Zero, we must ensure that the names of any Muslim victim of 9/11, be he a first responder, a worker in the building, or a passenger in the plane, not be included on the list of victims of 9/11. Instead, once we shall have removed the Islamic centre from so close to Ground Zero to a few blocks further away, we could then ask it to include its own epitaph in its own mosque with the names of the Muslim victims of Ground Zero. While family members of victims go to pray at Ground Zero, we could make an exception for the Muslim family members of victims of 9/11 lest they offend tourists. Maybe we could ask them to go to their mosque further away to pray for their loved ones who died on 9/11. After all, America did not sacrifice its soldiers in Iraq to give Muslims freedom in America. It was rather to give them freedom in Iraq. Let's not forget that. So I call for a wipe out of all evidence of Islam of any kind anywhere near Ground Zero. Your thoughts on this?

Another good video on the subject: I wonder, when we build the memorial to the victims of 9/11 on Ground Zero, I guess we'd better make sure the names of any of the Muslim victims, be they first responders, occupants of the buildings, passengers on the planes, etc., not be mentioned on any list of names of the victims, lest if offend the family members of the victims of 9/11. In fact, just to be safe, we should assume that any Muslim on the plane, be it a man, woman or child, was part of the plot, and any Muslim in the buildings was there to try to distract people while the planes were approaching, and any Muslim first responder was there to try to thwart the efforts of other first responders. Heck, we could even go further and say that any Muslim on that plane had a greater responsibility than any other passenger to charge the terrorists and stop them because they happened to have the same religion. After all, why should the buffed up martial art expert be responsible to charge the terrorists in the cockpit while a pregnant Muslim woman and her infant child on her lad traveling alone with her happen to share the same religion. Why didn't she put the infant aside and storm into the cockpit to fight those Muslims? Heck, she could have used her belly as a shield. Damned Muslims. Hell will freeze over before I ever show my appreciation for the Muslim first responders who tried to save lives on 9/11. They don't deserve to be remembered, and their families should be cast away from Ground Zero. Besides, we have enough Christian Churches there, no? What, not good enough for those Muslims?

I like this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0&feature=player_embedded I realize that many here who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque oppose it on moral grounds but do not want to legally prohibit its construction. That doesn't change the fact that many among the opponents of the mosque are in fact trying to legally prohibit its construction. And so just as the Muslims of NYC supposedly need to be sensitive to the fact that the 911 terrorists called themselves Muslim, certainly in the same vein those who oppose the ground zero Islamic centre need to likewise be sensitive to the fact that many others among their ranks are opposed to freedom of religion for Muslims. If we're going to hold Muslims responsible for the actions of other Muslims, then we also need to hold opponents of the Ground Zero centre responsible for the actions of other opponents who actively try to place legal obstacles and likewise those who have bombed mosques and beating Muslims and have committed other acts of terrorism against Muslims. And let's consider too how many US servicemen hae given their lives to fight for freedom for Iraqis, most of whom are Muslim, only to come home and see Americans fighting to remove freedom from their brethren in America.

Mao was a propaganda genius. Among his policies included building a united Chinese front against Japan and so even tried to build with the Nationalist Party, and that party turned him down and still chose to fight a two-front war against both the Communist Party and Japan. This naturally attracted other political parties to build a coalition with the Communist Party instead of the Nationalist Party. Also, with the Communist Party fighting on the front lines distracting the Nationalist Party from fighting the Japanese, this had given Mao a very legitimate reason to march off the front lines and go on the long March, so as to not distract the Nationalist Party from fighting the Japanese. This also saved many Communist lives while the Nationalists were busy fighting on the front lines. So while the Nationalists were busy fighting, the Communists were marching through the countryside helping farmers. A propaganda coup. And Mao was very wise in insisting on the strictest rules of behaviour for his soldiers, such as no looting, no forced, conscription, etc. Owing to his propaganda genius, he'd actually attracted some Nationalist turncoats. He'd even used US help to the Nationalist Party to his advantage. The Chinese, after two Opium Wars, decades of semi-colonization by various powers, and more recently Japanese aggression, were sick and tired of any foreign interference. The Communists were quick to seize on this American aid by advertising it far and wide thus painting the Nationalist Party as another party bought by foreigners. No matter what we may think of Mao, we can't deny his propaganda genius. He'd even gone so far as to treat Japanese POW better than his own soldiers, and make sure those POWs know it, as a means of undermining Japanese morale. He'd even employed a Japanese woman, Hasegawa Teru, whom the Nationalists had formerly rejected by virtue of her nationality, to speak over the radio regularly informing her countrymen in Japanese of the reality of the brutality of the Japanese army in China. So yes, foreign leaders can certainly learn much from Chairman Mao with regards to hearts and minds campaigns. He was the master of hearts an minds campaigns par excellence. Somehow though, I doubt protesting the mosque in NYC will receive a favourable reception among the Iraqi and Afghan people and other Muslim peoples we're trying to 'liberate'. Not exactly a piece of propaganda genius at all.

So tellme, what are they fighting for? Or is it that hard to answer? Here's your chance to educate me here.

Also, a great cause is always one to fight for, not against. The Allies were not fighting against Nazism or the Japanese. They were fighting for peace and justice. The mosque protesters, what are they fighting for? If you have nothing to fight for, then you have nothing worth fighting for.

Why not focus our attacks where they are deserved? The men who flew the planes into the buildings were followers of Bin Laden. So instead of wasting time trying to curtail the freedom of religion of fellow citizens who suffered just a much as we did on 9/11 if not more so, by exercising an illegitimate freedom of expression to undermine another's freedom of religion (when one freedom is used to trump another, it is illegitimate in my opinion), why not focus instead of striking down Al-Qaeda and breaking US military ties with Saudi Arabia. The builders of that mosque lost loved ones on 9/11 too, and as such a just as much right to sympathy for the buildin of their mosque and living their lives as anyone else. If the 9/11 attackers manage to create a wedge between Americans, then they shall have won, exactly what they wanted.

I was thinking of Hasegawa Teru yesterday, and it got me thinking of this whole debate over the Islamic centre. For those who don't know, Hasegawa Teru (AKA Verda Majo, or Green May), was a Japanese woman who decided to help the Chinese in their plight against the Japanese Imperial Army. Chinese forces had provided her with a radio station from which she could communicate to her compatriots in their own language what their army was really doing in China. This of course undermined the Imperial Army's propaganda campaigns and shook the commitment of many Japanese soldiers in the battlefield. Now while many Chinese even today still hate the Japanese, those who know of Hasegawa Teru generally don't, and even have much respect for Hasegawa. One had even suggested to me that in his opinion, the story of Green May ought to be taught to all Chinese children in school. How is it that those Chinese are capable of distinguishing between Green May and her compatriots who murdered and pillaged in the name of her country? How is that some here cannot distinguish between the terrorists who crashed planes in the name of Islam and those who want to build the centre to challenge those terrorists, to undermine them, and to show that freedom of religion is still strong in the US? Looking at it that way, those Muslims who stand up against terrorism in the name of Islam are essentially the modern Green Mays of Islam today? Should we not respect their efforts rather than undermine them? Let's look at Green May again for a moment. When she'd first approached the Kuomintang to help them, they'd rejected her because she was Japanese. What a loss for them. Then she'd come across the Communist Party of China, and they'd welcomed her with open arms. Talk about a propaganda victory for the Communist party against Japan, and a lost opportunity for the Kuomintang. If we do like the Kuomintang and simply ignore those Muslims who want to help us in our plight against terrorism, then we too may miss some opportunities.

There you go. Is it not better to stand for something rather than against something? Instead of wasting energy being against the mosque, why not divert energy to be for Walmart. At least that way the activits would actually be fighting for a cause rather than just against everything, no?

Prelude to "Kill-a-heathen Day"?

It's pretty pathetic when one has to pose as a Muslim and then present a bad act to try to win his point.

Hali kalamtu'l-lughat al-arabi? Troll.

And just another point: As long as the local government does not declare the spot to be a heritage site off limits to all construction, why should the local Muslim community, which has suffered twice as much as the general community (once by losing family and friends to 9-11 like anyone else, and twice by having an association between them and the terrorists imposed on them by the general community), forgo the opportunity to build there only to have others take it over instead? If they are simply abiding y local laws, then the local government is to blame for not declaring it a heritage site. So don't blame the Muslims for that.

Then looking at it that way, you'd certainly agree that it any organization, be it religious or secular, which builds on that property would be doing so only as a result of 9-11. Looking at it that way, if the Muslims can't build there, neither can anyone else. And to say that the people who crashed the planes into the buildings were men does not make it any less true that if a group of women should build on that property, they too would be building there only as a result of the attack. Oh sorry, it had nothing to do with them being men, but rather Saudis... or, no, because they had beards? Or the hair colour? Oh now I remember; It was because that community was unfortunate enough to have someone commit these acts in the name of their religion. Now that's a bummer. I was just wondering: are the Muslims who'd lost family members on 9-11 included in this 'we'? Again, if you decide that that the memorial site should be expanded by a couple of blocks, fair enough. But don't say a mosque can't be built there and then say nothing when a men's culture centre opens up there, or a centre for Asian studies (after all, the perpetrators were men and Asians too). One can build there, so can they all. If not one, then none. However, the protest does not seem to be about building on Ground Zero (otherwise people would be asking to make it into a heritage site of sorts), but rather specifically about building a mosque at ground zero.

Precisely. Bingo! Outside any political sense it means nothing more than a point of impact. Now if we insist on imposing a political sense on it, that's a different matter; but then we'd have to question the motives of the one who insists on imposing a political sense onto it.

Sure you can. Separate targets are separate ground zeros. If I drop a bomb on point A and another bomb on point B, I can't say that the crater on point A is the Ground Zero for point B. Sure it would be a legitimate military target in principle if the terrorists had a valid reason to attack the US in the first place, which they did not have. Again, a matter of definition. It could be considered a ground zero in its own right, albeit not as dramatic. The deaths in the other locations were less real?

Good video on the topic here. Seeing that there is no controversy over holding services at the Ground Zero of the Pentagon, yet a major controversy over two blocks from Ground Zero in NYC, one woman is honest enough to say it's all about a mosque competing with the nearby Baptist church. Afterwards, the interview includes a perspective from a number of angles. Well done.

So if Islam is just so evil, why is the issue about not building a mosque around ground zero rather than just banning Islam altogether? If that's the issue, then what's the difference whether the mosque is built on spot A or spot B?

What are your thouĝts on this video:

Hmmm... are they building the Ground Zero mosque in Iran?