Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne

[MinDonner]

Once your argument starts to depend on speculations as to the mindsets of Afghan peasants, something is definitely amiss, and we passed that point several pages ago.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I do not understand this argument that followers of Al Qaeda would gain a morale boost from the construction of a Sufi religious centre.

So it's not going to be a moslem religious center?

I think you are over-formalizing the distinction, and underplaying the distinctions between different Sufis. Heck, Hasan al-Banna at least started out as a Sufi. It doesn't always break down into formalized, hierarchical sects in the same way that Protestantism sometimes does. Hamas has come out in favor of this project, and we're told (correctly, as far as I know) that there's no connection between Hamas and Sufism. So why would Hamas support this? Simple -- because it's a mosque, and they identify with it at some level even though the imam practices Sufism. It could be viewed by radicals as a beachhead, or the proverbial half a loaf.

There's enough truth in that to make effective propaganda.

In any case, that ship sailed years ago when the Pentagon held muslim services for the sake of unity. There were few to no complaints then and the symbol, if you will, was far more powerful. There's still no complaints now that I'm aware of, that it's been a hindrance in the WoT. So why the construction of this community center should matter in that context is frankly puzzling.

I think there is a significant difference between construction of a new public facility, and the existence of prior ones, both in terms of potential propaganda and in terms of the visibility/impact in the community. You may disagree, and that's fine. The Pentagon is a completely enclosed building not open to the public, a city in itself, and there really isn't any alternative place to put a place of worship for moslem uniformed and civilian personnel who want to worship. As I've said a number of times, I'd be fine with the facility if it turns out there aren't any practical alternatives.

[TerraPrime]

Re: FLoW

As I said above, if that was the only consideration -- morale of the enemy -- I probably wouldn't have had much of an opinion. But if it is viewed that way by the bad guys, and trumpeted on websites, etc., that's additional salt in the wounds of the local folks. That part bothers me.

I don't know why the twisted thinking colored by a blind hatred of the U.S. should bother you so much. What matters if the anti-U.S. terrorists co-opt one of our buildings as a symbol for their success? We can't live our lives and conduct ourselves with a censoring visor on to deny them any possible morale gains. Well, we shouldn't, anyway.

Now, it's a just a giant fuckstain, and no matter what ends up happening, it will have driven a wedge. And at this point, I think it's probably passed the point where backing down is an option, because I agree the rhetoric has gotten too high now.

That sounds vaguely familiar....

Just like how backing down from bullies only enables the bullying, the moving of the Park51 project would now, at this point, given the type of bigoted comments that have been used against them, just serve to validate the ugly anti-Islamic feelings.

Nevertheless, at least we can agree that canceling the project now is not the best option.

ETA:

There's enough truth in that to make effective propaganda.

Really? I just don't get why we have to change how we live to fight them. That;'s like telling all the Asian kids in the U.S. that the way to fight stereotypes against Asians is to not perform well in science and math. That'll teach those bastards who'd want to stereotype us!! :dunno:

[MinDonner]

A quick question... why is the opinion of Hamas so vital in Manhattan construction planning?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

I'm an Orthodox Christian. My church has a mission church in Aiken SC. If radical Serbian Orthodox Christians were to view the constrution of a perminant Orthodox church in Aiken as a "trophy" showing Orthodoxy's victory over the evil secular Americans who took Kosovo away from them should permission for this church to be built be denied?

Uh, no.

Well, let me rephrase that. If some Serbian Orthodox radicals crashed a couple of planes into the Aurora Pavilion because they viewed evil Americans as heretical non-believers in Serbian Orthodoxism, and killed 3000 people, we subsequently went to war in Serbia over the attack, and while we were still in Serbia fighting radicals, construction of a Serbian Orthodox church across the street from the former Aurora Pavilion was proposed, I imagine some locals might oppose it. And I'd probably agree with them.

Other than that, no.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

A quick question... why is the opinion of Hamas so vital in Manhattan construction planning?

It's not. But if someone wants to claim this facility would have no appeal to radicals because the imam is a Sufi, Hamas support for the facility seems to refute that.

[Guest Raidne]

Anyone else get the feeling that FLoW doesn't even really believe in what he's arguing for/against at this point? He's either too stubborn to admit opposition to the community center is a stupid, stupid thing, or has to tow the party line as he seems to do on all things, no matter how ridiculous they may be.

This actually speaks really well for him as a lawyer, IMHO.

I see all the other opposition seems to have lost interest, so we have to give him credit for keeping the thread alive. Assuming that's a good thing...

[IheartTesla]

New analogy!

Should Glenn Beck move his rally to a day different from MLKs speech anniversary?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Why only "Serbian" Orthodox? Why not all Orthodox? The Mulims proposing the Cordoba Center are not in any way affiliated with Al-Quada.

[DanteGabriel]

It's not. But if someone wants to claim this facility would have no appeal to radicals because the imam is a Sufi, Hamas support for the facility seems to refute that.

So at this point it's not even about the construction. You're now picking at arguments that are levied in support of a project that you now agree is better off being allowed to proceed. Is my assessment correct?

[sologdin]

The latter involves fault and foreseeability, the former does not.

nice. this is likely the proper approach. how to handle, this, infra, then:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Re: FLoW

I don't know why the twisted thinking colored by a blind hatred of the U.S. should bother you so much. What matters if the anti-U.S. terrorists co-opt one of our buildings as a symbol for their success? We can't live our lives and conduct ourselves with a censoring visor on to deny them any possible morale gains. Well, we shouldn't, anyway.

This all goes back to the point, which repeatedly gets lost in the shuffle, that this is contingent on the availability of reasonable alternate sites. If it was a choice between hurt feelings and no mosques in NY, I'd go with the hurt feelings. The fact that you guys don't see attach any significance to the degree of the burden being imposed seems an unbridgeable rhetorical gulf. It's the slippery slope argument. "Well, if we're going to ask them to move a few blocks, the next step is expelling all moslems from the U.S. so as to not offend anyone, or to tear down all mosques to show them we can't be intimidated."

You don't see a distinction, I do.

[Spastic Plastic]

A quick question... why is the opinion of Hamas so vital in Manhattan construction planning?

Because Former Lord of Winterfell obviously believes Hamas are the ones doing the construction. Sufi Muslims and rational arguments be damned.

[MinDonner]

New analogy!

Should Glenn Beck move his rally to a day different from MLKs speech anniversary?

Nah, that's got the same problems of power-differential as the Pope one. How about an Irish pub getting built within a few blocks of the Brighton bombing?

[Hereward]

So it's not going to be a moslem religious center?

I think you are over-formalizing the distinction, and underplaying the distinctions between different Sufis. Heck, Hasan al-Banna at least started out as a Sufi. It doesn't always break down into formalized, hierarchical sects in the same way that Protestantism sometimes does. Hamas has come out in favor of this project, and we're told (correctly, as far as I know) that there's no connection between Hamas and Sufism. So why would Hamas support this? Simple -- because it's a mosque, and they identify with it at some level even though the imam practices Sufism. It could be viewed by radicals as a beachhead, or the proverbial half a loaf.

There's enough truth in that to make effective propaganda.

What has Hamas got to do with the price of fish? Hamas are not particularly fond of the US, but they are nothing whatsoever to do with 911 or the WoT. They are partly funded by Iran, who are, as you know, Shia, so they clearly aren't, as of now, sectarian. Al Qaeda are, to the tips of their fingers. They hate Shi'ites, Sufis and every other type of Muslim that doesn't follow their narrow interpretation. That's why Hamas doesn't let them operate in their area. It is perfectly possible for Hamas to be in favour, partly through wishing to show solidaity to fellow believeres, and to tweak the US nose, without there being the slightest relevance to the argument.

[ljkeane]

Nah, that's got the same problems of power-differential as the Pope one.

To be fair I doubt most of the groups complaining about the convent in Poland were representing Polish minorities.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

New analogy!

Should Glenn Beck move his rally to a day different from MLKs speech anniversary?

Hey, good question. That's a toughie. I've only heard about this secondhand, but it seems that he's claiming -- perhaps toungue in cheek -- that it really has no link to MLK.

If his point is that he thinks the civil rights movement has gotten off track, and that he wants to "restore" it to MLK's alleged true ideals, then I can see why he wants to do it there. On the other hand, I can see why that might piss off some people, so I wouldn't begrudge anyone who bitched about it. I personally think it's dumb, though, because it's going to amount to preaching to the converted. Then again, he's an entertainer, so maybe it's brilliant from a PR perspective.

[MinDonner]

If it was a choice between hurt feelings and no mosques in NY, I'd go with the hurt feelings.

I guess the question really is, whose feelings are getting hurt? If it's just all the NYC Muslims who are being demonised as this bunch of insensitive, freedom-hatin', 9/11-triumphalist terrorist types, then fuck 'em, I guess?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It is perfectly possible for Hamas to be in favour, partly through wishing to show solidaity to fellow believers...

I think the same essentially applies to AQ under the "half a loaf"/beachhead theory. Easier to convert a Sufi-run mosque than to build a Sunni mosque out of scratch, don't you think? And as I said, Hassan al-Banna was a Sufi who founded the Moslem Brotherhood.

....and to tweak the US nose, without there being the slightest relevance to the argument.

Doesn't this apply tenfold to AQ? Don't you think they'd love to tweak the nose of the U.S., particularly since it is their triumph that they'd be celebrating? Surely they could do that by touting the fact that it is still a mosque, and simply ignoring the Sufi imam.

[TerraPrime]

You don't see a distinction, I do.

I'm not sure that's true, at least for me.

I agree that some anti-U.S. terrorists out there will use the construction project* as a sign for their own success. I just don't think that asking the project to relocate another block, or two blocks, will deflate that claim significantly. I mean, how familiar do you think they are with the topology of Manhattan? And why wouldn't the propaganda wing of these organizations gloss over the distance and simply declare victory, anyway? You're arguing as if the propaganda wing would have cared about the precise distance as long as the building is in the vicinity. If they're going to lie about the Park51 project as being a victory, then why wouldn't they also lie about the distance?

Not to mention, I just don't care that it might give the anti-U.S. terrorists a morale boost. They are irrational, hate-filled, and blinded by their own ideology - hardly people to parlay with. I worry more about the potential recruits for these organizations more, and I think the building of a center like that will do us more good in counteracting their recruiting effort than not.

*Let us be clear too that if there had not been an opposition to this project to begin with, it would not have gained nearly as much attention, nor would it have drawn the eyes of other countries to this local project.