Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne

[DanteGabriel]

This thread has taught me much more about FLoW than it has about mosques or lower Manhattan or even the global character of Islam.

[awesome possum]

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.

1) What statements has he made?

2) How can you take him at his word? After all, he's just a politician. Or do you mean we can only take him at his word when it's convenient for you?

[TrueMetis]

1) What statements has he made?

2) How can you take him at his word? After all, he's just a politician. Or do you mean we can only take him at his word when it's convenient for you?

I'm pretty sure it was he hasn't said in a lot of cases.

[DanteGabriel]

Via Andrew Sullivan's blog on the Atlantic, I found a pretty nice "liberal curmudgeon" blog post about the Cordoba controversy. While the writer reiterates the same excellent points about the bigotry behind the protests, there's another excellent point:

But there's a problem that goes much deeper than simple hypocrisy and inconsistency with the entire notion of reverence for a place where we became victims of an act of war. When I was writing my book Air Power, one fact I came across took my breath away as much as I thought I knew about World War II, and it still does every time I encounter it anew. In eight months of air raids over Britain from September 1940 to spring 1941, German bombers killed 40,000 British civilians, seriously injured 50,000 others, demolished hundreds of thousands of houses and damaged millions more. Leonard Woolf, in his extraordinary memoirs, describes the haunting silence the morning after an especially heavy German bombing that seemed to have left half of London in ruins; vast piles of rubble in the streets blocking traffic everywhere; almost no one moving about; losing his way again and again as he tried to walk across town to his office, unable to find a single familiar landmark other than the dome of St. Paul's now and then appearing in view.

It is hard in this age of endless memorialization to even express this view without sounding callous: but Londoners did not turn their entire city into a "hallowed ground" or a shrine for the dead or a monument to British victimhood. They rebuilt, they went on, they rightly saw that the truest memorial to the dead was to show the Nazis that their city would rise again as if the Nazis had never existed on the face of the earth. I have always felt a deep discomfort similarly with the entire holocaust-memorial and holocaust-study industry. As a Jew, I hate the idea that the defining fact of my people's entire history should be what the fucking Nazis did to us.

There is a great Spanish proverb: olvidar la injuria es la mejor venganza: to forget an insult is the greatest revenge.

http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/08/victimization-and-vengeance.html

That's an amazing figure there. Almost 100,000 British civilians killed or seriously injured during the blitz, untold property destruction... And the British went on and rebuilt and didn't feel the need to cordon off London afterward, or request that Germans who wanted to live in London nine years later move somewhere else out of sensitivity.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

Do you have a reading comprehension issue? You claim I'm "unconditionally rejecting anything he says or does", when you quoted me as saying:

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.

I suspect you wouldn't be taking everything he says as absolute truth if he was a conservative politician or less trendy religious leader. But any degree of caution goes right out the window when it pertains to someone who is all the rage at the local coffee house. Even some folks who support the mosque have admitted that some of the things he's said haven't helped his cause. I leave open both possibilities -- that's he's being completely honest, or not. And I even reject the idea that he's a closet radical. You, on the other hand, categorically reject the possibility that he's playing to his audience. Lovely.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Via Andrew Sullivan's blog on the Atlantic, I found a pretty nice "liberal curmudgeon" blog post about the Cordoba controversy. While the writer reiterates the same excellent points about the bigotry behind the protests, there's another excellent point:

http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/08/victimization-and-vengeance.html

That's an amazing figure there. Almost 100,000 British civilians killed or seriously injured during the blitz, untold property destruction... And the British went on and rebuilt and didn't feel the need to cordon off London afterward, or request that Germans who wanted to live in London nine years later move somewhere else out of sensitivity.

The argument on this board isn't about cordoning off NY, or convincing all moslems to move out of the city, but nice strawman.

Somehow, though, I suspect the building of a German cultural center a couple blocks away from the ruins of Coventy Cathedral, while the war was still going on, wouldn't have gone over too well among the Brits.

But hey, who knows, right?

[Ser Reptitious]

FLOW,

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....

[snip]

And none of them think that just kicking ass and taking names is enough.

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I appreciate that you and your friends are well aware that there are good guys and bad guys within the ranks of the U.S. military.

What I was getting it at is that you would obviously see anyone who attacks your friends (who clearly are good guys according to your description) as "the bad guys". What I was discussing at length in previous posts in the last thread was that you have to completely remove any bias whatsoever towards your own side being the good guys and anyone fighting them automatically the bad guys.

I mean, how is the average Afghan villager supposed to know that the U.S. occupation is different from the British in the 19th century or the Russians in the 20th?

There is a lot of scepticism and distrust there (along with a natural instinct to defend your hometurf against foreign invaders), and finding out that a group of fellow Muslims (who are much more liberal and moderate than your average Afghani) are being castigated in the U.S. (the homeland of the invaders) for daring to build a place for Muslims to pray is not going to go over very well.

[DanteGabriel]

The argument on this board isn't about cordoning off NY, or convincing all moslems to move out of the city, but nice strawman.

Somehow, though, I suspect the building of a German cultural center a couple blocks away from the ruins of Coventy Cathedral, while the war was still going on, wouldn't have gone over too well among the Brits.

But hey, who knows, right?

We're still at war with all of Islam, are we?

That's the central fact we can't get past here, it seems. You can't tell the difference between al Qaeda and all of Islam. That, or you don't want to. Despite all your experience over in that part of the world. I'm about done trying to poke holes in your arguments, because it just makes you shift to a more infuriatingly obtuse and stupid argument. The bit to Mormont about being a trendy religious leader is classic -- it's the extreme right faction of bigots and dumbasses who made him "trendy." It was the Bush administration, after all, who deployed Rauf as an ambassador for moderate Islam. So I'm just left to point and laugh at your desperate goalpost-shifting, revolving door of bullshit rationalizations of the moment for your bigotry, and secretly feel a little pity for what a narrow-minded bigot you aren't even smart enough to realize you are.

[jurble]

The argument on this board isn't about cordoning off NY, or convincing all moslems to move out of the city, but nice strawman.

Somehow, though, I suspect the building of a German cultural center a couple blocks away from the ruins of Coventy Cathedral, while the war was still going on, wouldn't have gone over too well among the Brits.

But hey, who knows, right?

Am I at war with you brah?

[Swordfish]

Am I at war with you brah?

DON"T TAZE HIM!!!!!

[TrueMetis]

Am I at war with you brah?

If it comes down to it I'm on you side.

[BloodRider]

Wait - I think FLoW just told us that he is an acquaintance of Evan Wright

[Spastic Plastic]

The "Generation Kill" creator? Isn't he too open-minded and liberal for FLoW?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Am I at war with you brah?

I didn't choose the German analogy -- DG did. And it's a crappy one even from that perspective because if you choose that analogy and actually apply it to the attitudes of the time, I don't think it comes out in favor of that cultural center.

All Germans weren't Nazis, but that doesn't make Coventry pro-German. Same with the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, or the Israelis at Sabra. It takes times for the wounds caused by such a loss of life to heal, and I think it's simply a matter of respect. As when the Pope moved the convent at Auschwitz. You don't move it because you have to -- you move it out of consideration of feelings. And when you don't do that, you look like you don't care. I've said before I'd feel the same way if some Christian nutbags blasted Riyadh while screaming Deus Vult. All Christians surely aren't morally responsible, but building a Christian shrine close to that site is just in bad taste.

Your mileage may vary.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The "Generation Kill" creator? Isn't he too open-minded and liberal for FLoW?

No.

[alguien]

Do you have a reading comprehension issue? You claim I'm "unconditionally rejecting anything he says or does", when you quoted me as saying:

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.

I suspect you wouldn't be taking everything he says as absolute truth if he was a conservative politician or less trendy religious leader. But any degree of caution goes right out the window when it pertains to someone who is all the rage at the local coffee house. Even some folks who support the mosque have admitted that some of the things he's said haven't helped his cause. I leave open both possibilities -- that's he's being completely honest, or not. And I even reject the idea that he's a closet radical. You, on the other hand, categorically reject the possibility that he's playing to his audience. Lovely.

So, you do acknowledge that he could be sincere in his attempt to promote peace and understanding?

By default, that makes your opposition of Park 51... interesting.

[TrackerNeil]

That's an amazing figure there. Almost 100,000 British civilians killed or seriously injured during the blitz, untold property destruction... And the British went on and rebuilt and didn't feel the need to cordon off London afterward, or request that Germans who wanted to live in London nine years later move somewhere else out of sensitivity.

:shakes head: This is something that troubles me as well. During WWII there were very real threats overseas, threats that launched sneak attacks on naval bases and leveled cities and systematically murdered millions of people, so the level of fear was reasonable. In the new millenium, our threats are largely manufactured and/or exaggerated: child molesters and terrorists and Muslims, and the level of fear is completely ridiculous.

You know, on 9/11 nineteen hijackers tested our values, and we have failed with a big, red "F."

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

Somehow, though, I suspect the building of a German cultural center a couple blocks away from the ruins of Coventy Cathedral, while the war was still going on, wouldn't have gone over too well among the Brits.

So, your point is that bigotry that would have definitely have been exhibited back then somehow rules out the bigotry happening now?

Also, you do recognize that Brits were at war with Germany, but the United States is not actually at war with Islam?

[Darkostar]

Also, you do recognize that Brits were at war with Germany, but the United States is not actually at war with Islam?

But I thought Islam was a country!

[sologdin]

I didn't choose the German analogy -- DG did. And it's a crappy one

As when the Pope moved the convent at Auschwitz.

so whoever initially brought the latter item up godwinned the thread, aye?