Mosque going up in NYC building

[GostHacked]

An objective, if uncomfortable, truth (and one that Hitchens knows full well, having once written well about it, though his Born Again hyper-Nationalism has forced him to forget) is that these Westerm noble beacons of freedom and democracy have been intentionally involved in massive acts of terrorism that make Hamas look like the terrorist amaturs they really are.

It's not that one shouldn't denounce the terrorism of Hamas; I think people should. But perspective, and basic honesty and decency, should demand we not be hypocritical moral relativists on this point. We are also guilty of terrorism...worse than Hamas and Hizbollah combined could ever have dreamed of accomplishing.

But we justify ours, of course...our terrorism is "different" from others' terrorism....and not only because it's worse. No, no; that's not the point. We were fighting the Soviet menace, for example (clear up until September 1999, interestingly)..

Many good points in your post, but these really stand out for me.

[bloodyminded]

Many good points in your post, but these really stand out for me.

Thanks, GostHacked! I doubt that some others will see my post quite the same way.

[scribblet]

LOL More to the point, in my view, is that those who whine terrifically about the evil terorists Hamas are almost to a person either liars or are so ignorant of histrroy that they should stop exposing their stupidity

Maybe 'tis you who are ignorant of history.

[bloodyminded]

LOL More to the point, in my view, is that those who whine terrifically about the evil terorists Hamas are almost to a person either liars or are so ignorant of histrroy that they should stop exposing their stupidity

Maybe 'tis you who are ignorant of history.

I keep the possibility always in mind, yes.

But I'm talking here of those who are unquestionably, undebatably ignorant of history. Like those who think the Western nations don't commit terrorism, which isn't even a respectable argument.

[Shady]

First of all, the "sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center" is factually, objectively correct

I agree. The next step for you and your ilk, is to recognize the partial responsibility of Islam for the assault on the World Trade Center. Or is that when you people shut off your brains for politically correct purposes?

As for the Imam in question. If he can't come out and denounce Hamas, then he shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque near Ground Zero. That should be the basic test for any so-called moderate Muslim. If he can't even get himself to do that, he's not really a moderate.

[Shady]

Many good points in your post, but these really stand out for me.

Those stood out for me as well. Mostly for their lack of substance.

I'm not sure which massive acts of terrorism he's referring to. Perhaps he's reading some talking points out of the Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Qaeda propaganda handbook. I find it quite disturbing and disgusting that you people continue to try to equate liberal democracies with violently anti-semetic, anti-human rights terrorist groups. Who's primary goal is the destruction of Israel.

But ironically, you speak of moral relativists and compulsive liars, when your writtings are filled with both components.

[bloodyminded]

I agree. The next step for you and your ilk, is to recognize the partial responsibility of Islam for the assault on the World Trade Center. Or is that when you people shut off your brains for politically correct purposes?

I do recognize people as responsible for their own actions.

Sadly, i hold to that fringe, lunatic radical-left notion that Westerners have more of a moral obligation to worry about our actions than those of others. Craziness, I know.

As for the Imam in question. If he can't come out and denounce Hamas, then he shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque near Ground Zero. That should be the basic test for any so-called moderate Muslim. If he can't even get himself to do that, he's not really a moderate.

And any Westerner who can't come out and denounce Western or Western-supported terror should have nothing to say on the matter.

[dre]

I agree. The next step for you and your ilk, is to recognize the partial responsibility of Islam for the assault on the World Trade Center. Or is that when you people shut off your brains for politically correct purposes?

As for the Imam in question. If he can't come out and denounce Hamas, then he shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque near Ground Zero. That should be the basic test for any so-called moderate Muslim. If he can't even get himself to do that, he's not really a moderate.

If he can't come out and denounce Hamas, then he shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

Yeah maybe that should be written right into a common building permit application form!

Building Square Footage: 15000

Number of Rooms: 240

Electrical Service Size: 2000 Amps

Denounce Hamas: Yes

[bloodyminded]

Those stood out for me as well. Mostly for their lack of substance.

You mean you are unaware of it. Therefore it lacks substance.

I'm not sure which massive acts of terrorism he's referring to.

Then I'll enlighten you.

Perhaps he's reading some talking points out of the Hamas/Hezbollah/Al Qaeda propaganda handbook.

You see what happens when you make baseless suppositions? you say things that simply aren't true.

Several Western countries, primarily the United States, materially and intentionally aided the Suharto dictatorship in committing a 25-year act of massive, ongoing terrorism against East Timor. It was material and diplomatic support for this state terrorism, for a mass murder which is one of the worst of the last half of ther 20th century by percentage of population. Numbers vary a little (though not much), but 200 000 dead is considered a respectable estimate.

One third of the population.

Normally, what the apologists will do here is to make one of two points, or both (which conflict with each other, though the apologists remain bizarrely unaware of the contradiction):

1. We often "look away" during terrible atrocities, but that's not the same thing as committing them; or

2. The Cold War demanded lots of unsavoury alliances...but we were fighting a greater evil.

Well, both of these, whatever one thinks of them in certain cases, are total hogwash in this case:

1. We didn't "look away." We assisted: with arms, with diplomatic support, knowing full well waht was going on. We were directly funding the terror apparatus (and in the US case, using machinations to "render [the UN] ineffective" in the words of the man responsible, Amabassador to the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan.)

Canada, the UK, and Australia were also on board, supporting the invasion, and sending arms for it.

This is--outright, unequivocal--material support for terrorism on a massive scale.

Hamas has committed nothing remotely as horrible.

So, no: no "looking away."

2. The Soviet Union wasn't involved. While Suharto was a staunch anti-communist (and far, far worse and more brutal than most communists, by the way), the Soviet threat is a preposterous excuse.

And if anti-communism and Soviet threats were the reason, why would the support and the diplomatic wrangling and the lying to the press and public continue until...1999?

So, there you go. Terrorists.

If not...why not? Feel free to offer explanations. Hopefully free from generalized platitudes, and specific to the case.

I find it quite disturbing and disgusting that you people continue to try to equate liberal democracies with violently anti-semetic, anti-human rights terrorist groups. Who's primary goal is the destruction of Israel.

I'm saying that if we denounce terrorism, we obviously must denounce Western terrorism. That shouldn't be terribly controversial. (For some reason, however, it is. Go figure.)

Edited August 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Sadly, i hold to that fringe, lunatic radical-left notion that Westerners have more of a moral obligation to worry about our actions than those of others. Craziness, I know.

I would describe that as being more racist than crazy.

And any Westerner who can't come out and denounce Western or Western-supported terror should have nothing to say on the matter.

I agree. As is the same for any Imam who can't denounce Islamic supported terror in the present day. Specifically related to Hamas. If one can't do something as basic as denouncing Hamas, than perhaps building a mosque near Ground Zero shouldn't be permitted.

Denounce Hamas: Yes

It's sad that it doesn't come naturally for a so-called moderate Muslim, and instead needs to be written in a contract.

[bloodyminded]

I would describe that as being more racist than crazy.

What the hell are you talking about? My assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with race.

Leave your political corrrectness out of it.

I agree.

No, you don't agree. When I pointed out an instance (a very serious instance) of Western-supported terror, you baselessly wondered aloud if I wasn't getting "propaganda" from Hamas.

So...by your standards, you personally should not be speaking on this matter at all.

As is the same for any Imam who can't denounce Islamic supported terror in the present day. Specifically related to Hamas. If one can't do something as basic as denouncing Hamas, than perhaps building a mosque near Ground Zero shouldn't be permitted.

Ah. That's some draconian legislation you're proposing there. Denounce Hamas...or no building permit.

I wonder what other political opinions should be made to restrict previously legal behaviour?

Edited August 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

What the hell are you talking about? My assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with race.

Leave your political corrrectness out of it.

No, you don't agree. When I pointed out an instance (a very serious instance) of Western-supported terror, you baselessly wondered aloud if I wasn't getting "propaganda" from Hamas.

So...by your standards, you personally should not be speaking on this matter at all.

Ah. That's some draconian legislation you're proposing there. Denounce Hamas...or no building permit.

I wonder what other political opinions should be made to restrict previously legal behaviour?

Ah. That's some draconian legislation you're proposing there. Denounce Hamas...or no building permit.

I wonder what other political opinions should be made to restrict previously legal behaviour?

This argument is really no more ridiculous or fallacious than any of the arguments made over 140 pages on this topic.

Lets recap.

1. Muslims should be allowed to build there but they shouldnt because they should have "empathy" and not want to offend people. Its totally fine though to burn their holy books in an act of direct provocation.

Too stupid to comment on.

2. Muslims shouldnt be allowed to build there because the proposed mosque is on ground zero.

Problem is its NOT on ground zero. Its a few blocks away.

3. Muslims shouldnt be allowed to build there because the 911 memorial with be in shadows of the "monstrous mega mosque".

Except that it wont be. You wont even be able to see this building from ground zero.

4. The anti mosque hysteria sweeping the US has nothing to do with bigotry! Its all about the sensitive WTC site.

Except that none of the mosques being protested are on the WTC site. One is a few blocks away, another is a few states away, and another is at the very opposite end of the country. Apparently tennesee and california were hit by pieces of the landing gear too

5. They should not be allowed to build the mosque because they havent condemned Hamas.

Problem is building permits are goign to get pretty complicated if you have to denounce every organization on the US government terrorism list to get one.

Those are just the most common ones... theres some even wackier stuff in these threads.

[Shady]

What the hell are you talking about? My assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with race.

It most certainly does. You don't expect the same standards from "those brown people." Why not?

No, you don't agree. When I pointed out an instance (a very serious instance) of Western-supported terror, you baselessly wondered aloud if I wasn't getting "propaganda" from Hamas.

You're right, it's not really out of the Hamas propaganda handbook. Hamas, etc couldn't care less about that instance.

Ah. That's some draconian legislation you're proposing there. Denounce Hamas...or no building permit.

There are several laws in existence regarding the support of terrorist groups.

I wonder what other political opinions should be made to restrict previously legal behaviour?

Political opinions need no restrictions. He's free to have whatever opinions on Hamas he wishes.

[GostHacked]

I agree. The next step for you and your ilk, is to recognize the partial responsibility of Islam for the assault on the World Trade Center. Or is that when you people shut off your brains for politically correct purposes?

As long as you can admit the Catholic church facilitates child abusers. OH SNAP!!!

Is this being a moral relativist?

As for the Imam in question. If he can't come out and denounce Hamas, then he shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque near Ground Zero. That should be the basic test for any so-called moderate Muslim. If he can't even get himself to do that, he's not really a moderate.

He might not even be a Muslim then !!!! OOHHHHH. How does this thread manage to keep itself so fresh? Can we push this to 200 pages??

[Jack Weber]

As long as you can admit the Catholic church facilitates child abusers. OH SNAP!!!

Is this being a moral relativist?

He might not even be a Muslim then !!!! OOHHHHH. How does this thread manage to keep itself so fresh? Can we push this to 200 pages??

Can we push it to 200 pages??

As long as Dr.Breitbart,our resident expert on everything is on the scene,I suspect we can!!!

(How much you wanna bet,"The Truth Detector" posts something on the "What's on your mind" board about my "crush on the racebaiting scum,Andrew Breitbart?...I'll bet he simply cannot resist that temptation)

It's fun playing with the feeble minds of the patently hapless,is'nt it?

[Shady]

As long as you can admit the Catholic church facilitates child abusers.

Yes they did. I don't think there's any doubt about it.

As long as Dr.Breitbart

Sweet, I got a Breitbart outta you! Just need a nazi and racist to get the trifecta, also known as the Jack-off!

Edited August 26, 2010 by Shady

[GostHacked]

It's fun playing with the feeble minds of the patently hapless,is'nt it?

For the first few couple times yes ... then it gets real old real fast.

[Jack Weber]

For the first few couple times yes ... then it gets real old real fast.

Well,it's either Captain CANUSA or the resident NAZI we have to deal with...And constantly correct them,for acting like impudent little children..

I suspect they are both in their early 20's with little expereince at anything...

Edited August 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Guest American Woman]

So no matter what people say, they are all terrorists and should be treated as such. WTF is wrong with people?? Circular logic which leads back to the same question. Stuck on the merry-go-round.

I guess I am not the only one who wants to see/read what he wants to see/read.... right American Woman?

You'll have to explain yourself, because I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never gotten into the "they don't denounce terrorists" debate and wasn't aware that there is such a debate going on within this thread.

So who else is seeing what they want to see/read? And what does it have to do with me?

[GostHacked]

Yes they did. I don't think there's any doubt about it.

So all catholics are child abusers? Or just all child abuser Catholic.

Edited August 26, 2010 by GostHacked

[Shady]

So all catholics are child abusers?

Of course it's not all Catholics.

[dre]

Of course it's not all Catholics.

But clearly the catholic church should have "empathy" for the thousands of little kids raped by catholic priests and their families, and not build any churches for a while.

[GostHacked]

Of course it's not all Catholics.

So not all Muslims are terrorists. So stop blanket treating them as such.

[dre]

Seriously though... should Catholics be able to build new churches so soon after all of their sexual abuse scandals? They should be allowed to I guess, but maybe they should CHOOSE NOT TO... out of empathy for the buggered children!

[Jack Weber]

Yes they did. I don't think there's any doubt about it.

Sweet, I got a Breitbart outta you! Just need a nazi and racist to get the trifecta, also known as the Jack-off!

More cyptic penile commentary...

Classy as always,kiddo...