Jump to content

Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne


Bellis

Recommended Posts

In a world where people who aren't even giving comments to the press can be labeled opportunists, I am overwhelmed with the possibilities.

That's an obvious sign that the imam has something to hide, no?

Rauf needs to learn this lesson: to avoid being damned if you do and damned if you don't, you've got to be a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, this mosque supposedly had as its goal not to make a First Amendment statement, or to change the legal status quo, but to bring two bickering parties closer together. Now I've come around to the point where I don't believe that at all. I think he's largely an opportunist -- not an ideological radical, though -- and this was a chance for him to greatly increase his own profile/status both in the U.S. and with moslems with money overseas. He wanted to be the guy who built the big "come together" Mosque near ground zero. When push came to shove, though, he decided not backing down and losing support among moslems he was trying to impress was more important than the whole peace/harmony thing.

So... because someone does not back down from the controversy, he is now, in your analysis, an insincere opportunist? You're ascribing a lot of negative motivations, such as selfishness and opportunistic, based only on the strength of your own conjectures. More, you're presenting your own conjectures as facts, such as "he decided not backing down and losing support among moslems he was trying to impress was more important than the whole peace/harmony thing." That is just a craptacular piece of bullshit befitting of people like Beck and Limbaugh. What a waste of people's time to have to read that drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

But have September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, Russell Simmons, and NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg explicitly declared that Hamas is a terrorist organization?

If not, I'm not sure I can take anything they say seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. And as has been pointed out, the polling itself is complicated. A majority of people wish that the place wouldn't be built, but agree that the place's owners have the right to build it.

Sure. I get that. Is that position any less common among those on the right?

Either way, i just find it odd that you used a generalization about how accepting the left is on this issue, given that around half of them (if I remember the poll correctly) don't want it to be built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

You're mixing means and ends. MLK wasn't seeking just peace and harmony. He could have had that by encouraging blacks to stay in the back of the bus. He wanted change and equality, and his preferred method was peace and nonviolence. But because peace and harmony without the Civil Rights Act was not acceptable.

The bottom line in the comparison is this: You could just as easily have blamed Rosa Parks, MLK, and the blacks in general for the whole controversy that erupted back in the 1960s the same way you blame the builders of this community centre today. You're blaming the victims of bigotry, rather than the perpetrators. Of course the controversy could have been avoided if the victims had just kept silent and refrained from asserting their rights. But that's not really an acceptable way of doing things, is it?

On the other hand, this mosque supposedly had as its goal not to make a First Amendment statement, or to change the legal status quo, but to bring two bickering parties closer together.

Where exactly did you get the idea that Muslims and non-Muslims in the U.S. were bickering (prior to this whole brouhaha)?

I'm pretty sure the goals of this community centre are multifaceted. For one, they want to provide a space to the local Muslim community to gather, play, and pray. But they also intend to welcome non-Muslims to use the centre in order to show that they are inclusive. They probably also hope that these non-Muslims will also get to know Islam better and thereby break down some prejudices.

If they move the community centre now, they will implicity acknowledge that there is some merit to the prejudical views or that at the very least such views are understandable. That is definitely not the message they want to send.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, i just find it odd that you used a generalization about how accepting the left is on this issue, given that around half of them (if I remember the poll correctly) don't want it to be built.

Can you name someone on the left who has participated in any of the three threads in which this topic has been discussed who has been as vociferous in their opposition this community center as just one person from the right?

In fact, can you name any person from the left side of the political spectrum who has been as loud and disingenuous about this topic as just one FOXNews talking head?

Since most of those on the left who oppose the community center appear to be either mentioned in polls where the question was probably some form of the rather misleading, "Are you opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque?" or are spineless politicians, I'm dying to find out.

I love how polls are dragged out (by either side of the political spectrum) when they agree with the point you're trying to make but are pointless, flawed things when they disagree with the point you're trying the make.

The point I'm trying to make is perfectly clear: I don't care if 99.9% of Americans are against this Manhattan community center, they're still wrong and most of them are either bigots or are allowing bigots to form their opinions for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muslim cab driver stabbed by belligerent drunk for being Muslim.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/25/cab-driver-attacked-stabbed-new-york-muslim_n_694091.html

Is the guy who stabbed him a Christian? I'm sure FLoW would agree that it would be reasonable for the cab driver to refuse to pick up Christians after this. You know, out of sensitivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Actually I believe the correct analogy would be that Christians should refrain from trying to hail Muslim cab drivers out of sensitivity. I mean, of course they have a right to hail Muslim cab drivers, but they should refudiate any intention to exercise this right so as not to metaphorically stab all cab drivers in the heart...wait a minute, wasn't someone just actually stabbed? Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I correct in guessing that you served time in the military?

yes. Went to a military academy undergraduate so I have a lot of contact with classmates still. About half those fuckers have retired already. Bastards....

However, as Raidne pointed out as well, I couldn't help but notice that all your connections to Afghanistan and Afghans are from the "other side" (i.e. your own side).

That's not entirely correct because the journalist was a Rolling Stone reporter when I first knew him, and wasn't predisposed to be pro-U.S. military and wasn't complimentary about officers in particular. But he ended up sort of "coming round" until now he's a pretty big booster. You could argue Stockholm syndrome if you wanted to, I suppose. Anyway, as to the military guys....

I'm not sure how helpful that is when you try to determine how the average Afghan villager thinks.

In fact, I'd argue it's downright unhelpful, since you undoubtedly see your buddies and American soldiers in general automatically as "the good guys" and anyone that attacks them is automatically "the bad guys". This is exactly the sort of black-and-white thinking that I was getting at in the previous thread.

It's a reasonable point, but I don't think it's accurate.

First, anyone who has spent time in the military knows there are plenty of douchebags, including just plain stupid people and people with prejudices. I don't always assume military people are right because I know plenty who haven't been. I once had a prior enlisted boss, a major, who was just dumb. I could tell you stories....

The guys I know don't fall into that category at least. About half are Navy grads, but all were sharp guys. One I didn't mention (because I haven't had individual contact with him, though I did attend a speech he gave and said hi afterwards) is Marine Lt. Gen. John Kelly, who was in charge of Anbar province for awhile. I worked with him pretty closely when he was a major for a few years as a tactics instructor, and though majors tend to get made fun of a lot by more junior officers (we used to refer to the "O-4 lobotomy"), he wasn't. A very sharp guy, no overblown ego, knew his shit inside-out, and a good guy on top of that. Told me I was an ass for getting out, and he's right. But anyway....I remember thinking at the time (20+ years ago) that this was a guy who should be a general someday. 3 stars now. just googled him, and found this Wikileaks document written by him. I think you can read that and know he's a decent, professional guy who will blame our own people when warranted.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_memo_from_US_Maj._Gen._Kelly_confirms_Fallujah_Gulag

One of the guys I know best was Christopher Conlin, a former housemate. Chris was the investigating officer for an alleged war crime in Baghdad and recommended court-martial rather than dismissal for the officer being investigated. He took a LOT of shit for that, especially from civilian neanderthals on the right who assumed he must be a "desk jockey" who didn't understand front line combat. As if they would.... Anyway, that's all public and the only reason I mention that is to show that these aren't stereotypical "we're never the bad guys" people. They are intelligent, thoughtful, professional Marines.

Obviously, none of them are Afghanis. However, everyone has their own biases, including afghan villagers, and people tend to say different things in front of outsiders they don't know or audiences than they do in private. The guys I've mentioned have all had extended contact with locals, observed both what they say and their actions over time, etc. They've learned to filter out B.S. much better than some, and figure out which stuff is being said for consumption, and which is really accurate. I personally think that's much more reliable than when a journalist gets some quotes from someone who knows they're talking to a U.S. reporter. It always strikes me as odd that someone takes a quote from someone over there and assumes the person saying it is being honest. You may have a different opinion, and that's fine. One guy I didn't mention was an old friend who went into a non-uniformed service after the Marines. Now that guy always struck me as wrapped a bit too tight, and while I hear from him pretty often, his attitude is pretty hardcore so I discount the stuff he said. If I credited it, it would make my argument stronger, but I have my doubts.

Of course, just for fun, he sent me a whole bunch of anti-terorrist leaflets, matchbooks, "wanted" posters, "how to detect a package bomb" stuff in the summer of 2000. I put some of it up in my office for fun, and even then, a lot of it was OBL related. Still have about 100 OBL matchbooks, come to think of it. Anyway, he told me OBL was an SOB and we need to keep an eye on him because he had the reach to get us over here. So on the morning of 9/11, that name popped into my head the moment the second place hit. So maybe this guy isn't such a dummy....

Anyway, not only are these all people I've known for a long time, so I trust them to be honest (even if they could honestly be wrong), but what strikes me is that I tend to hear the exact same thing from all these guys. Different details and stories, but the overall tapestry of what they say is completely consistent. Of course, I'm sure I have some biases because they're all friends. But I honestly think the information I get from them is a lot more accurate than what is generally reported in the media. And these guys are all professionals in the sense that they really, really want to win and end these wars. They think about this shit constantly trying to figure out what works, and what doesn't, and have a lot of very open and honest discussions. And none of them think that just kicking ass and taking names is enough.

OTOH, it's about 50-50% whether we're completely fucked in Afghanistan. Maybe 75% think we can win if you sent more troops, changed the way we do a few things, and gave it more time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe 75% think we can win if you sent more troops, changed the way we do a few things, and gave it more time.

For a specific and narrowly-defined set of meaning for "win"? Sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I thought I'd throw in a quote from Imam Rauf's eulogy for Daniel Pearl:

Wow, what an extremist asshole. Note how he did not say that Hamas is a terrorist organization!!! :rolleyes:

He's giving a speech in front of a U.S. audience during this controversy. What do you expect him to say? Dude is a politician, just like most religious leaders. Now, the real trick is to know exactly what gets said when he meets with potential donors overseas. Maybe the same thing, maybe not. No way to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's giving a speech in front of a U.S. audience during this controversy. What do you expect him to say? Dude is a politician, just like most religious leaders. Now, the real trick is to know exactly what gets said when he meets with potential donors overseas. Maybe the same thing, maybe not. No way to know.

Isn't this just more of the 'guilty until proven innocent' mindset that people were already pointing out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's giving a speech in front of a U.S. audience during this controversy. What do you expect him to say? Dude is a politician, just like most religious leaders. Now, the real trick is to know exactly what gets said when he meets with potential donors overseas. Maybe the same thing, maybe not. No way to know.

What has he ever said that's so inflammatory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Don't you ever proofread your own stuff?

Have you actually read any of the linked information that's been posted? Have you been to the Cordoba Center's website? I really think that they are actually pretty much horrified at all the publicity, and the nature of the publicity.

I said in a post above that a lot of religious leaders are like politicians. Probably comes with the territory to some extent. We all know that many politicians say different things to different audiences on different occasions. And they sometimes say things they don't believe. For example, Harry Reid has said that he thinks the mosque is a bad idea, but folks here think he's only saying that because of the political outcry, and he in fact doesn't feel that way.

This particular imam has made some other statements that are not quite as clearcut, and generally, it seems to be when he is speaking overseas to a different audience. So, unlike you, I do not believe that what he says here in public and what he says on his U.S. website necessarily reflects his actual opinions and beliefs. Shit, everyone gussies those things up for maximum appeal to the intended audience. Now, I didn't say that I think he's a secret radical, because I don't. But I do question his motives in the sense of the usual religious leader who sometimes confuses his own public image and ego on the one hand, and his mission on the other. Because I don't think his actions with respect to this mosque are consistent with his stated purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this just more of the 'guilty until proven innocent' mindset that people were already pointing out?

Uh, no. Do you believe it valid to unconditionally accept everything anyone says as reflecting their true opinion? I personally think there is an inconsistency between his actions and words, but I wouldn't bet the house on it either way. Maybe he's just pissed off and digging in his heels out of plain old temper. That's entirely possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, no. Do you believe it valid to unconditionally accept everything anyone says as reflecting their true opinion? I personally think there is an inconsistency between his actions and words, but I wouldn't bet the house on it either way. Maybe he's just pissed off and digging in his heels out of plain old temper. That's entirely possible.

But you think there's an inconsistency because you see his actions in a certain light: and when people put it to you that his words make that view of them unreasonable, you say that you don't trust his words. Why? Because they're not consistent with his actions - or at least the slant you've put on them. You appear to be simply begging the question each time you're challenged on your view of the man. That would suggest that you're guilty of unconditionally rejecting anything he says or does as reflecting his true opinion. There's a word for that, and it is 'prejudice', I'm afraid.

ETA - of course, it might be that you have some deeper knowledge of the guy that I lack. (Not hard, I'd never heard of him before this.) If so, it would be interesting to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...