kimmy

Based on the contents of his diary, it sounds like he hated Muslims before this controversy. He probably hated the idea of Park 51 as soon as he heard about it. He was probably provoked by the very fact of Park 51's existence. (see how easy this game is?) -k

It's also retarded to suggest that the President's chief of staff be held to the same standard as an anonymous guy on a message board. It's also retarded for the forces of political correctness to defend his use of this politically incorrect term. It's kind of retarded for "the left" to think that everybody should conform to their standards except themselves. -k

What's most astounding to me is that it took almost 5 years from crime to sentencing. -k

Claiming he was "emboldened" to this by the protests is as provable as claiming it this attack was an angry reaction to the mosque project itself. Complete, unadulterated speculation. As for the rest, AW has it nailed. -k

In the case of Suharto, I believe that a large portion of the carnage was actually at the hands of militias that were not directly under his control (albeit, tolerated by his army... much like the jan jaweed militias in Darfur.) Saddam is believed to have murdered in the range of 800,000 of his own people, not counting those killed during wars. If I'm not mistaken, that number dwarfs comparable numbers for Franco and Salazar. But I'm certainly no historian. -k

I think the Saddam card probably trumps all of those. I'd have to research some of them a little more, but I think that on sheer death toll, Saddam probably wins. Not sure why we have to just pick fascists, though. Pol Pot remains to me the most disgusting. Would loved to have had the chance to fist-fight that guy. Wait, what has this got to do with anything? -k

I have a hunch that your first comparison... to Stockwell Day's jet ski arrival... is more likely how this will play: his critics will declare it a calculated stunt intended to show Harper as either "cool" or "a regular guy" or "fun-loving" or something like that. Much like how his critics reacted to his Beatles performance. An excellent comparison. -k

Debating whether extreme Islamist (note to the pre-schoolers on the board, "Islamist" isn't a synonym for "Muslim") dogma is fascism in a strict literal definition is kind of like arguing about whether Pol Pot was really a communist. -k

It's not "a mosque and a cathedral existing as one". It's a Catholic diocese. It's not a mosque. It used to be a mosque, until it was taken from the Muslims with deadly force. Warm; fuzzy. The claim that Cordoba is now a symbol of unity is post-hoc rationalization. The claim I'd heard made earlier is that the name "Cordoba" was chosen because it represented a high point for the Muslim world, in terms of academics and knowledge and architecture and commerce and trade and pluralism. I actually believe that, because it makes sense. Disingenuous? Your attempt to spin the criticism of the name as fear is disingenuous, as is the effort to argue that since the average New Yorker isn't up in arms about the former name, the objections to it are faux outrage. I again state the obvious: naming your Islamic bridge-building project after a name that is strongly associated with Muslim conquest of Europeans was an incredibly bad idea. Specifically: you and I, and Smallc, and probably everybody except dre knows that as soon as this thing is built, some Islamist is going to proclaim "We smashed down their towers and built a mosque there!" Imam Rauf knows that as well, and it's probably something that's very upsetting to him. And yet he picked a name that perfectly fits that Islamist narrative. How can you even begin to rationalize something that stupid?? -k

This wasn't aimed at you, but rather at your "team". You might not do this, but dre and Machjo sure do. Yet I notice that they didn't jump in to condemn your startling attack on Islam by pointing out for you the numerous flaws in other faiths. Just noticed this yesterday. I wonder what we'll find out once reporters start asking about the mosque these guys go to? Hardly. My objection has never been to Islam as a whole. I have known Muslims who are normal and decent people who I have no more quarrel with than I do with any Christian I know. My concern is not the faith as practiced by westernized Muslims who have grown up with the same ideals we have. My concern is with those who come from places where stone-age ideology is the norm, and my concern is with stone-age clerics and stone-age books that will help keep that stone-age ideology alive. -k

I've always believed that the "us" and "them" in jbg's signature refer to "us" being western democracies, and "them" being stone-age kooks. It never even entered my head that the "us" and "them" referred to race. I think your assumption that he must have been referring to race says more about you than about him. -k

I feel the exact same way, Jack, and if Opus Dei ever turns into a significant threat to western democracy I'll be concerned about them too. -k

I think it's quite funny that you guys are patting yourselves on the back for your great cleverness. As far as I can tell all you've accomplished is ducking arguments you can't address and knocking down straw-men. ...b-b-but Christians do bad things too! ...b-b-but Muslims have been victims of hate crimes! ...b-b-but it's not a mosque! ...b-b-but fine Corinthian leather! ...b-b-but Saudis invest in Fox News too! ...b-b-but ... well, if you're not down with the super non-mosque, you're just a bigot! -k

b-b-but... Priests molest children! Women can't be priests! .. Spanish Inquisition ... witch burnings... residential schools... Timothy McVeigh ... David Koresh! As an avid supporter of the super non-mosque near but not at Ground Zero, you get to criticize Islam to point out how even-handed and objective you are. If those who disapprove of the super non-mosque near but not at Ground Zero say the same thing, they get countless examples of bad behavior by Christians... even those who couldn't care less about Christians. At any rate, your "overwhelming evidence" for the innocence of Western mosques consists of nothing more than the fact that few have been caught red-handed. To restate the objection, again... Many western mosques are built with Saudi generosity. Saudi generosity most likely includes a library full of books by stone-age Saudi "scholars". It likely also includes a Saudi cleric to teach stone-age Saudi ideology to westerners. I don't see any reason at all to be happy about stone-age ideology being exported from Saudi Arabia into our country. I personally find it pretty damned disappointing. I'd be much more supportive of mosques in general if I knew that they were staffed by western-raised clerics who understand liberal democracy, as opposed to third-world scumbags who regard anything that has happened since the 7th century as "inventions" that the Prophet never approved. -k

If I catch my little kimlet playing a game as a Taliban fighter, she's gonna get waterboarded. -k

In many cases the only rule that pro-life groups are breaking is being pro-life. -k

Gee, if Fox News and mosques are practically the same thing, why do you bigots hate Fox News so much? -k

I'm certainly curious to see how this thing plays out. Personally, my hunch is that in short order some woman is going to be told she can't use the swimming pool dressed like *that* or she needs to cover herself or leave, or the Friendly Atheist Society will be denied use of the nondenominational meeting space, or some Jewish person is going to get into an altercation with patrons of the mosque, and the wheels will come off whole "everybody is welcome!" thing in a hurry. But that's just my guess. People will be watching like hawks for anything that disagrees with the lofty claims Imam Rauf is making about how the facility will be for everyone. -k

Because it's his duty to spread Islam to the unbelievers, whether they want it or not. -k

Absolutely, it's symbolism. Burning books is a symbolic gesture. It wasn't always (in a time before digital media, and especially in times when books were rare and hard to produce) but nowadays it's purely symbolic. Park 51 is symbolic too, despite the claims from some that "it's not Ground Zero and it's not a mosque". You, me, Imam Rauf, the average New Yorker, and some rabid Islamist in Saudi Arabia would all agree that this is symbolic. All of us probably disagree on what it actually symbolizes. A lot of people are not happy about the symbolism of a guy who wrote a book called "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11" actually building a big monument to Islam on what is as close as he could get to that very rubble. It's reasonable to expect people who claim to want to "build bridges" to respect the sensitivities of the people they want to "build bridges" with. If the Park 51 guys want to "build bridges", then you bet they should show empathy. Why aren't the Florida Christian kooks showing empathy to Muslims? Because the Florida Christian kooks don't give a crap about "building bridges". They *want* to upset Muslims. -k

I agree that the developers have the right to build there. I think all of us do. However, that's not what I was asking. Sir Bandelot posits that this is a battle between those who want to create tolerance (the Park 51 supporters) and those who want to promote hate (everybody who doesn't support the project, apparently.) So I think it's a legitimate question: will the Park 51 project actually help create tolerance? -k

Will building this project at the intended location really help create a civil society or reduce hate? -k

The people building the Park 51 project claim that they want to "build bridges" so being "empathetic and sensitive" ought to be pretty important to them or they won't succeed. I don't think the kooks who want to burn Qurans have any intention of "building bridges", so I don't think they care about being "empathetic and sensitive". Now, if the people behind Park 51 have some goal other than "building bridges", then I could understand why being "empathetic and sensitive" wouldn't be their concern... -k

Yeah, thaaat's probably why Quebec is against it. Considering how common it is for the federal government to directly fund private corporations, or to enter into shared-cost capital projects with the provinces, I'm not buying that there's a jurisdictional issue here. I think we all recognize what Quebec's real gripe is. -k

And I think you should spice up your messages in the "Arts and Culture" section with some of these little guys... ...to let us know that you're in on the irony, because you're so earnest that it's hard to tell if you recognize how funny what you're saying is. You'd like DiCaprio to play the role as a farce, since in your opinion a movie where a guy is talking to a CGI creature could only be a farce. Presumably you'd have also have him play his character in Titanic with winks to the audience to let you know that he knows that he's "drowning" in 2 feet of water on a sound-stage in LA. And perhaps they should have cast Peter Sellers in "2001", and John Cleese as "The Exorcist" so that those actors could do some wacky shtick, instead of picking actors who treated such fake material earnestly. What you're really asking is that those involved in creating films that aren't "real" should confirm your bias against this type of material by treating it as farce. Except you, apparently. -k