kimmy

She can speak for herself, but no, that's not what she's saying at all. As for myself, I see no reason why I shouldn't be skeptical of Rauf's intentions. I don't believe he's linked to extremism, but I do believe he's just trying to exploit 9/11 to spread his message, and to spread Islam in general. -k

I didn't say it's a monument to extremism, just that it's a monument. While it's builders no doubt believe they're building a grand symbol of Islamic outreach, others will interpret its symbolism differently. For a lot of third-world scumbags, it will assuredly be viewed as a symbol of Muslim triumph and a monument to extremism. As for him being a Liberal, I don't even think he's a liberal. -k

What she's referring to is that Imam Rauf himself has stated that the site's link to 9/11 is an important statement. -k

What a moronic response. -k

Because before it was a modest mosque and prayer space and now it's a 13-story monument and political statement. -k

It was an attempt to parody somebody we all know. Sorry it wasn't received that way. I'll delete it and let the thread get back on track. -k

(link) As dre explained, the referee uses a guideline that the fighter is "actively" or "intelligently" defending himself. For a fighter who is on his back, that typically means he is using his arms to block strikes, or using grappling to control his opponent's posture or arms to prevent his opponent from landing *effective* strikes. Most strikes landed while on the ground in MMA fights are *not* effective strikes. It's very difficult to land effective strikes while grappling. The effective strikes only begin when the guy on top is able to improve his position (usually a mount position) and get free of his opponents arms. At this point, he's able to posture up so that he can get some wind up on his punches, and then the guy on the ground is in trouble. At this point he can punch freely and the referee is going to stop the fight unless the bottom fighter can regain a defensible position quickly. If he can't show the referee that he can protect himself at this point, and he is getting hit, the referee stops the fight. That's how rule 4.c is interpreted by every official working in North America. The biggest thing that people just don't understand about MMA is how many tools the guy on the bottom has to defend himself with. Many fighters will willingly let an opponent get them on their back just to have an opportunity to use their grappling techniques. The frequency with which the guy on top ends up in a choke hold or a leg-lock or on his face with the other guy on top of him is surprising. So no, it's not gutless, because competent martial artists know how to fight in that position and are no more defenseless than the guy on his feet. When the guy on top does attain a position that makes it impossible for his opponent to defend himself, that's when the match is over. The assumption that punches thrown on the ground are somehow more dangerous than punches thrown while standing is just inane. Any boxer-- Jack Weber will vouch for this-- will tell you that real punching power doesn't come from the arms, it comes from the legs and hips and torso. In MMA matches, when there is a knockout, it almost invariably occurs as a result of a blow thrown when both fighters are standing. The reason is, you can punch far harder when you're standing up. When a fighter is on the mat grappling with his opponent, he can't throw powerful strikes like he can when he's standing. He can't use his footwork and his hips to generate power. And you don't have room to wind up. And you have a guy grabbing your arms and pulling you down and using your own chest to shield his head. -k

The "safety" argument is a sham. Those opposed to MMA won't-- and can't-- explain why cuts and broken bones and concussions suffered in MMA matches are cause for a ban while cuts and broken bones and concussions suffered in hockey or football or skiing are not. A competitive skateboarder was killed right in Vancouver this summer. Where's the BCMA outrage? -k

In Bonam's case I think it's more like libertarian degeneracy But it's a valid point: if we're talking about banning something because it's offensive to some people, or some people find it gross or icky or degenerate, then we're talking about banning everything from gay sex to alcoholic beverages to dealcoholized beer to rock and roll records to short skirts. Who wants to get into a game of line-drawing like that? -k

...

Didn't we have another thread last month alleging some kind of Canadian "Tea Party" was being formed? And a "Fox News North" thread? Are there any other big bad American bogeymen that the Canadian left can trot out to scare people? -k

And that is pure unadulterated bullshit. When a fighter on the ground is no longer able to defend himself, the contest is stopped by the referee. -k

There is a long list of sports and recreational activities that have killed more people than MMA. Hockey, football, and downhill skiing are included in that list. Why does the BCMA think that bruises and broken limbs and concussions suffered during MMA events more worrisome than bruises and broken limbs and concussions suffered during hockey and football and downhill skiing? Why are you more willing to take the word of the doctors who launched this move after treating a handful of superficial injuries after one event over the word of the medical institution that did a thorough study and concluded it's safer than boxing? I think we both know the answer to those two questions. Gillespie is wrong that there are fewer safety rules. There are a lot more safety rules in MMA than in boxing. And referees are far more willing to stop fights in MMA than in boxing. Gillespie is also wrong that the ground aspect of MMA increases the risk of injury. It's the opposite: the fighters are less likely to be injured during grappling. Ontario just sanctioned MMA, so Gillespie is wrong again. As Dre points out, MMA has done exactly that over the past decade; it's unfortunate that underinformed people like Gillespie and yourself don't recognize it and continue to perpetuate the myth that it's "no rules cage-fighting". You're a fine one to complain about the tone of the debate after opening with: and offering the opinion that people who disagree with you have conned by UFC mouthpieces. I think the replies you received were pretty polite, all things considered. -k

I assume that would be a decision that would be made on a congregation-by-congregation basis. (I think in Canada we had a case where one Catholic church was threatened with loss of tax-exemption when its priest urged his congregation vote against the Liberals because of their "anti-family, anti-life" views.) It wasn't every Christian church or every Catholic church that was threatened, it was one specific church for one specific reason. I would assume it would work similarly in the US, and if some mosque became active politically maybe that could happen, but it almost certainly would not affect other mosques. I also believe that there is probably some actual standard as to what constitutes political action. Do you have some specific incident that you believe applies as political action? -k

You make it sound as if the BCMA based this on extensive research. In fact, the opposite is true, as the BCMA president himself explains in this Vancouver Sun article: There was an event in Vancouver, doctors treated cuts, bruises, and fractured limbs afterward, and said "oh no this is terrible we have to stop this!" If you don't believe the information coming out of UFC, how about the information coming out of the Johns Hopkins study that concluded that injury rate in MMA is comparable to other martial arts sports, and that the risk of brain injury is lower than in boxing. They actually studied the issue, unlike the BCMA. Let's be honest here: the BCMA are acting on moralist reasons. I'll believe their position is based on the risk of broken limbs if they issue a call for a national ban on downhill skiing. I'll believe their position is based on the risk of brain injury when they issue a call for a national ban on hockey and football. Trying to dress this up as medical concern is an insult to the intelligence of everyone involved. -k

By the way: for those claiming that there wasn't a problem until Pam Geller got people all riled up, I offer this Rauf-friendly New York Times article for your consideration. The article is dated December 8, 2009, well before the controversy. Was the controversy predictable? One of Imam Rauf's key allies predicted it. -k

I've said all along that it's their property and they're free to build on it as they wish. However, the reaction to this project has been entirely predictable, and if he didn't want this sort of controversy he should have picked a different site. WTF are you even talking about? That's not a rational reply to anything I wrote. Again (and this has already been pointed out to you once) I didn't say he was attempting to profit from 9/11. I said he is exploiting the notoriety of 9/11 to spread his message. His book title clearly shows he understands the symbolism. And considering he himself has said that the link between this site and 9/11 sends an important message, I don't think there's any denying it. Nice try, speedy, but I never argued for suppressing anything. I just asked why people like you are so supportive of it. I don't support banning conservative Islam any more than I support banning the JWs or the Mormons or the Snakehandlers. People like me think that stone-aged ideology should be exposed and discussed and confronted. People like you think (as you explained in the other thread) that discussing it should be avoided, because there might be a "backlash". What of it? That his remarks have been distorted by his opponents does not prove that he is "liberal". He is clearly dedicated to the idea that Islam and democratic government are compatible with each other. And he is clearly dedicated to the idea of co-existence and peace. But once again, these don't show that he's "liberal" in any western meaning of the word, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he is in fact "liberal" in any western meaning of the word, so I think your claim that he is a "liberal" could use some substantiation. -k

You oppose showing the documentary because you felt that it could have social effects you think are undesirable: What more need be said? -k

Indeed. There's already enough stuff on peoples' cable bill that they have no wish to pay for. Even "basic cable" includes a bunch of channels I've never watched and have no interest in. I think that this supposed controversy over Sun TV is actually rooted in the way cable TV is licensed and (more to the point) sold. To me it appears as though the way cable is structured in Canada has created the potential for a network to exist even without reaching a significant audience. It appears to me that attempting to obtain the special license Sun TV was after was an attempt to cash in on that potential: a revenue stream that's guaranteed whether they find any audience or not. -k

Awesome rebuttal. -k

The furor surrounding Park 51 was entirely predictable. Had Imam Rauf opted for a low-key mosque like the site has been operating, and like others not far away continue to operate, none of this would have happened. His decision to make a grand political statement-- and he himself stated that that's what this is-- is at the heart of the controversy. They're allowed to build it, but nobody has to like it. They can do as they wish, but what they choose to do will affect how they are viewed. I can't imagine why Americans (or Canadians) are expected to be happy to see the construction of a project that will be hailed by our sworn enemies as a monument to Islamic victory. If Imam Rauf is as understanding and respectful of the sensitivity of this issue as he says he is, he should understand that giving Islamists a big symbol of triumph is offensive to many people. Referencing a heinous act of terror is an attempt to remind people that it's a religion of peace? Spend a moment and reflect on why they decided not to use that title in the english-speaking world, and let me know if you come up with anything. Hey, I know a Catholic who donates to his church every week, and he also owns shares in Microsoft. So Bill Gates must be the Pope, right? If Saudis use their money to buy real-estate in North America, they're buying an asset that will probably appreciate in value over time. If Saudis use their money to invest in some private enterprise, they're buying something they anticipate will generate revenue or appreciate in value over time. If Saudis use their money to build mosques in North America, they're not expecting a return on investment, they're doing so out of a religious duty to spread their faith. In the case of Saudis, that probably means the mosque gets a library full of stone-age Wahhabi ideology. It likely also means some Saudi "scholar" is coming to educate the people about his stone-age theology. Personally I have no idea why you guys are so excited about the whole-sale import of regressive ideas to "educate" future generations. I've seen nothing to suggest that Imam Rauf is a "liberal" in terms that North Americans would consider liberal. He's been sent to promote the message that we don't need to be enemies, which is highly noble, but hardly evidence that he's a "liberal". -k

I believe your response was this, making me completely truthful: You don't think people should hear about the crazies because it might reinforce negative stereotypes. There might be a reasonable argument to be made there, but doing so makes a mockery of your supposed support for the exchange of information in the marketplace of ideas. Ha ha, sure. Your own comments make it clear that you're all in favor of the exchange of information and ideas... except for ones you don't approve of. -k

Nobody has said that Sun TV can't broadcast. All that's been decided is that they can't have the premium license they applied for. I doubt Al Jazeera has one either. -k

That was me, Jack. Nice of you to remember. And if you want a quick recap of how that discussion went, here it is: -Nicky denied that CBCNW aired those documentaries. -I proved that they did. -Nicky conceded the point then talked about how great it was that a broadcaster was willing to air controversial material that challenges peoples' sensibilities. -I asked him if he thought it would be great if CBCNW were to air the British documentary Undercover Mosque. -Nicky declared that no, it would not be great, because it could have negative effects. Free exchange of information and ideas is awesome... as long as it's information and ideas that support ideas you believe in. -k

I must have missed that; last time I checked in with this thread (some time ago, I admit) he was among those screaming "bigot!" the loudest. Here's my objections to the superdupermegamosque: 1) This project is clearly divisive. Predictably so. That in itself makes it a bad idea. As the article AW just furnished points out, this has done nothing but raise tension. Did that really need to happen? 2) This project-- regardless of Imam Rauf's intentions-- will be hailed as a great victory by Islamists: "We smashed down their towers and built a mosque on the rubble!" Call me petty, but I just don't like the idea of giving those scumbags anything to cheer about. In fact, it disgusts me. ("OMG, kimmy is bigoted against Islamists!" Before you start shouting, get out your thesaurus and look up Islamist. It's not a synonym for Muslim.) 3) Imam Rauf is exploiting the notoriety of 9/11 to spread his message. In Muslim countries, his book "What's Right With Islam Is Right With America!" is published under the title "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11". Does it really seem a coincidence that he is now building is supermosque on what is, essentially, as close as he can get to that actual rubble? He's attempting to co-opt 9/11 for his own purposes. Do you not appreciate that this just won't go over well? 4) Considering the immense sums of Wahhabi money that will inevitably be involved, it's entirely reasonable to wonder whether this project will really be the super-inclusive bridge-building exercise its proponents claim it will. It seems more likely that it'll end up as a 13-story monument to stone-age Saudi ideology. Given some of Imam Rauf's statements, it seems that his notion of "bridge-building" would more accurately be described as "making America more friendly to Islam", which isn't quite the same thing. He's apparently a big proponent of Sharia law. -k