The "Ground Zero Mosque"

[peterbound]

That's why things like Abu Ghraib were so damaging to the U.S. effort in Iraq. Even people who were inclined to give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt probably had to strongly reconsider their position after that.

It made things a lot harder for the U.S. in Iraq. Don't try to deny that.

Just on this note. I was in Iraq when this went down. And personally i think the US was more pissed about it than the Iraqis. They were pissed, but they were much more upset about the Blackwater/XE incident were 17 civilians got killed.

[peterbound]

One of the the things I've most respected about US military personal is that they rarely come home and demand attention. It doesn't feel that way to me with you. You have been to Afghanistan so any of us voting folks should just shut up right?

Easy fella, i was honestly curious. Settle down. He said he'd been to some shitty parts of the world and seemed to speak with some knowledge of Afghanistan. I was going to PM him about the places he'd been to, exchange some war stories. Nothing more than that.

And you must not know many military folk. They love talking about the places they've been. Common ground and the such.

[Ser Reptitious]

Peterbound,

Ser,

How many times have you been to Afghanistan?

Just curious.

I have never been on Afghan soil (yet), but I have traveled in some very conservative Muslim parts of the world, and I have encountered my fair share of Afghan refugees in those places, particularly in Van (Eastern Turkey), which they seem to see as some sort of springboard to the West. It's fascinating to hear perspectives on the war in Afghanistan from their point of view.

I was also lucky enough to spend a considerable amount of time in law school studying Sharia and the Pashtunwali as part of my international law/human rights curriculum.

But hey, I don't pretend to be an expert or anything. But FLOW keeps telling me how misguided I am, so I'm curious to find out what his credentials are concerning Afghan people's views and priorities?

ETA:

I was going to PM him about the places he'd been to, exchange some war stories. Nothing more than that.

I appreciate the thought, but I was never in the military. I just love traveling to unconventional places in the world and find out how people there live. Finding out about other cultures and ways of life is far more fascinating to me than visiting famous tourist destinations. Plus I love history and politics (as you can probably tell).

[peterbound]

Peterbound,

I have never been on Afghan soil (yet), but I have traveled in some very conservative Muslim parts of the world, and I have encountered my fair share of Afghan refugees in those places, particularly in Van (Eastern Turkey), which they seem to see as some sort of springboard to the West. It's fascinating to hear perspectives on the war in Afghanistan from their point of view.

I was also lucky enough to spend a considerable amount of time in law school studying Sharia and the Pashtunwali as part of my international law/human rights curriculum.

But hey, I don't pretend to be an expert or anything. But FLOW keeps telling me how misguided I am, so I'm curious to find out what his credentials are concerning Afghan people's views and priorities?

Rgr, good luck getting over there. I hated the place. And my poor wife is having to go in two months.

An Aside, and it may not be the place for it, but you studied Sharia law in reference to human rights, and it didn't taint your view of the religion?

[peterbound]

peterbound - I just have to ask...what is the deal with your av?

Maynard James Keenan from TOOL. The greatest band making music today.

Or do you mean my name?

[Ser Reptitious]

Peterbound,

An Aside, and it may not be the place for it, but you studied Sharia law in reference to human rights, and it didn't taint your view of the religion?

Not at all. There are definitely a lot of problems with the way the Sharia is practiced in the Muslim world today, but that doesn't mean that Sharia can't be theoretically compatible with human rights.

After all, the Sharia is the legal code instituted by Mohammad in the name of God, and he was actually very progressive for his time and especially for his place. In 7th century women on the Arabian peninsula had absolutely no rights whatsoever. They could be killed by their families at will.

Mohammad forbade that (which is why honour-killings, which precede Islam, are actually unIslamic), and he also forbade forcing women into marriages. She had to consent. And while he said that the wife should obey the husband, he also placed on the husband the responsibility to properly provide for her needs. These were radically progressive ideas!

With that in mind a more liberal approach to Sharia is very possible and there are prominent Muslim legal scholars who advance that very notion.

The reason why Sharia appeals to a lot of Muslims is that many of them live in countries with authoritarian regimes where corruption runs rampant. So there is a lot of unfairness and injustice that they see. The wealthy and connected elite often get away with everything while the poor suffer and get punished. The idea is that Sharia provides certainty and treats everyone equally (if properly enforced).

I find the Sharia a fascinating topic and perhaps we should start a thread on it one of these days.

But right now I'm getting very sleepy (and I've already stayed up much longer than I meant to), so that will have to wait for another day.

Oh, I just saw that you were asking about the religion in general, not just the Sharia. Well, I have my issues with religions period. My view of Islam is no more or less jaded than that of any other major religion. They all have their good and bad parts, their fanatics and their moderates.

[TrueMetis]

I find the Sharia a fascinating topic and perhaps we should start a thread on it one of these days.

But right now I'm getting very sleepy (and I've already stayed up much longer than I meant to), so that will have to wait for another day.

That sounds very interesting, a thread on Sharia should defiantly be started at some point.

[shadowbinding shoe]

A good graphic representation of the amount of buildings affected by the attack

http://www.fema.gov/...fema403_ch7.pdf

Always remember building 7. One of the cornerstones of the 'truthers' argument.

Thanks for the link Pete. From that map it doesn't look like there are that many building that would fit the damaged-by-the-9/11-attack bill so relocating the project to another building is not that tough (at least in theory). Do visitors to the 9/11 site tour all of these damaged buildings or just the WTC?

So... what's the un-truthy story about WTC 7? Did it get squashed by the collapsing buildings?

[Errant Bard]

A bit late... sleep a bit and four pages appear out of nowhere, but:

The 60% figure (of at least a bachelo's degree) is from a private firm (Zogby). Do you mean to say private pollsters cannot ask people in France about their religion in a phone conversation/poll? I'd find that hard to believe.

Well, believe it, because it's the truth. (sorry, couldn't find a more official link in English. If you want to look, it's in the "Informatique et Liberté" 1978 law, a restriction about what is allowed to be computerized)

Bah. Even you, EB?

Here’s my original post, #177:

Note that I go as far as insidiously assuming that somebody will purposefully misunderstand the distinction, so I explicitly spell out that I don’t think that “X is a member of Y” means “all of Y is X”. And yet, a few pages later, it’s exactly what happens.

Nah, just pointing that the terminology you use is pernicious and not accurate. You did say you are afraid of Islam when you mean are really afraid of what a majority of practitioners do with it in African countries. If all of X is not Y, why use "X" to mean "Y"? Isn't "Islam" an interface implemented differently whether the subclass is called "Sufi" or "Shiite", to start with? Without actual implementation it's as harmless as that Christianity thing.

Reminds me, have you read "Persepolis"? it was a nice inside view of such Islamist threat, I found.

A thread on Sharia would be interesting, yes, with enough participants knowledgeable in the different brands of it, provided the thread doesn't drift into a full blown flamewar over whether Islam is good or evil.

[peterbound]

Thanks for the link Pete. From that map it doesn't look like there are that many building that would fit the damaged-by-the-9/11-attack bill so relocating the project to another building is not that tough (at least in theory). Do visitors to the 9/11 site tour all of these damaged buildings or just the WTC?

So... what's the un-truthy story about WTC 7? Did it get squashed by the collapsing buildings?

several bat shit theories. One that it 'melted' and one that it was blown up intentionally. They never say 'why' Bldg 7 was targeted, just that it was. And that the circumstances for it's destruction are sketchy.

Here are some of the more pervasive theories:

http://www.ae911truth.org/index.php

http://www.wtc7.net/

[Lord Mord]

S John,

But, if you experienced a pang of doubt about the propriety , not the legality, of a new mosque near the WTC site then you are an ignorant, bigoted, fucking redneck and there's no other way it could possibly be? I reject that.

As do I. At least, I reject any description so rhetorically exploded.

But why should there be even a pang of concern regarding propriety? You're entitled to your feelings, but far from what people have said about their being understandable, I don't understand.

While I ultimately concluded that I'm fine with the center, I don't think the fact that it raised some questions is the worst thing in the world.

Agreed.

Still, trying to stamp out any vocal opposition to the mosque is just as bad as trying to get it banned in the first place.

Who's stamping out opposition? I thought this was supposed to be an opportunity for people to explain how what they want is not predicated on making stupid generalizations. If that's not the basis, then I don't understand why this prompt should be difficult or untoward.

We don't have to treat the Muslim world with kid gloves lest we offend their sensibilities.

That is true. But it is a sign of good character.

That's really my only problem with this whole thing. I think both sides are being hysterical.

This is also correct.

[shadowbinding shoe]

several bat shit theories. One that it 'melted' and one that it was blown up intentionally. They never say 'why' Bldg 7 was targeted, just that it was. And that the circumstances for it's destruction are sketchy.

Here are some of the more pervasive theories:

http://www.ae911truth.org/index.php

http://www.wtc7.net/

No. Those are the 'Truthy' explanations. I asked about the un-'truthy' one (maybe I should have put the quotation marks to make that clearer?) I.e., what is the rational accepted explanation for its collapsed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SS,

Hundreds or maybe thousands of nearby buildings were damaged by the flying debris??? This seems... unlikely. It was the Twin Towers that were destroyed as far as I know. Not all of New York city. Are you claiming the whole surrounding neighborhoods had to be rebuilt or treated for damages?

There are a lot of buildings in lower Manhattan. I imagine many if not most of them were hit by flying debris when the towers collapsed.

Well, it wouldn't matter that much to me personally. Minarets are pretty and I prefer the type of architecture found in traditional mosques to the boxlike concrete glass and steel style you'll find in most modern buildings. But since the opposition to the mosque is centered around the raw feelings of people who were hurt by the 9/11 attack and the symbolic significance of this building, having this building tower over the twin towers site and casting it under its dark and sinister shadow, would strengthen these feelings.

A Ten Story Building, in Manhattan, is going to "tower" over the twin tower site? Not that it would matter to me if it did.

[peterbound]

No. Those are the 'Truthy' explanations. I asked about the un-'truthy' one (maybe I should have put the quotation marks to make that clearer?) I.e., what is the rational accepted explanation for its collapsed.

Rgr, Try this site:

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911d.htm

[Guest Raidne]

If this thread gets to 20 pages in the next couple hours, do I get some kind of award?

[mormont]

In the context of discussions about the location, I found this video on the BBC website to be interesting. It gives you something of a 'feel' for the locality, rather than a bald how-many-yards discussion.

[Horza]

Hey, it's already touching on 9/11 conspiracy theories, your prize is in the mail.

[DanteGabriel]

Fox News is trying to play "follow the money" on the Cordoba project... Yet somehow fails to mention that the trail leads right back to one of their biggest shareholders.

Jon Stewart continued his coverage of the 'Ground Zero Mosque' debate last night, focusing on Fox News' incongruities harder than he ever has. In a segment called "The Parent Company Trap," Stewart shared with his viewers how Fox News' plan to "follow the money" from mosque builder Imam Rauf to terrorists will be a tricky one because it leads right back to Fox News.

Stewart showed clips from his show last week, in which he mocked Fox News for playing a dangerous game of association based on speculation, and wherein Fox continued to mention a nameless man with ties to Imam Rauf through the "Kingdom Foundation." It turns out the man they are referring to but never name is Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Showing a photo of the prince shaking hands with Rupet Murdoch, Stewart exclaimed, "That's right, the guy they're painting as a sinister money force OWNS Fox News." Stewart then used Fox's own logic to explain how the "terror mosque" is funded by Prince Alwaleed, despite being a co-owner of Fox News, and therefore funding terrorism. So, using their logic, Stewart said, "If we want to cut off funding to the terror mosque, we must, together as a nation, stop watching Fox."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1033234,b=facebook

I've changed my mind. Now that I know a Fox News co-owner is involved with this project, the only solution is to nuke it from orbit.

[Guest Raidne]

This was also mentioned in the unread Frank Rich article I posted yesterday. Not that I, personally, have any problem with investments from Saudi Arabia. Last I checked, they were important allies of the United States and have even let us station a military base on their soil during the first Gulf War.

[peterbound]

This was also mentioned in the unread Frank Rich article I posted yesterday. Not that I, personally, have any problem with investments from Saudi Arabia. Last I checked, they were important allies of the United States and have even let us station a military base on their soil during the first Gulf War.

Good ole PSAB. Living the dream on three beers a day.