"Mosque" opposition provides aid & comfort to Taliban

[PeteInLongBeach]

Originally Posted by KSagal

The mistake that liberal minded people make is that if we are nice to the terrorists (by letting them make a mosque on the site of the attack) then they will like us better, and attack us less.

Now who's assuming and redefining what other people think? Ignoring the glaring inaccuracies of this generalization & analogy for the moment, the liberal-minded people I have heard comment on this issue are mainly concerned with the constitutional right of a group of people to build their cultural center over 2 blocks away from ground zero. Period.

If there is a mistake made, it is the above analogy that equates these people to the terrorists, that equates a cultural center to a mosque, and equates the Park51 address to ground zero. I also believe it is inaccurate and insulting to assume that "liberal-minded" people are more concerned with placating terrorists than supporting the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and subcultures.

[Civicsman]

If there is a mistake made, it is the above analogy that equates these people to the terrorists, that equates a cultural center to a mosque, and equates the Park51 address to ground zero.

KSagal has made that "mistake" repeatedly. I (and others) have pointed out repeatedly that it is wrong to equate an entire religion to some terrorists.

Yet, he persists in referring to Muslims as if they are all responsible for terrorist actions. Though he does make an occasional placating statement, personally, I have no doubt regarding his perspective regarding Muslims.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by eJM

You should not enter into a debate about something unless you have done some research. ...

The reverend from Florida has every right to express his "speech" by burning whatever book he wants. My disdain for him personally has nothing to do with his rights under the Constitution. My disdain is based on his reported thievery, lies, radicalism and his danger to other people (mainly service members in Iraq and Afghanistan).

The imam from New York likewise has a right to build his center. I have formed no opinion about whether it's a good idea or not, but I have formed an opinion about the man. He, prior to this issue, has been a very well respected businessman, religious leader, advisor to political leaders and has been very important to the leaders of other faiths. He's got cred.

The dickhead in Florida is a punk. The other guy isn't. ...

Jim

I happen to very much disagree with the man from Florida, in what he wants to do. But I also joined the US Army, to defend the constitutional rights of all citizens, including those who do what I feel is offensive.

I happen to also feel that building that mosque is offensive. I do not feel that all Muslims are terrorists, never have, do not plan to start. I have good friends who are Muslims, and have not had any rift with them about this mosque, as they also agree that its placement is insensitive.

As far as the Imam in NYC being less of a punk, or more of a credible guy, I believe he authored a book, published in both English and Arabic. The book in both languages was essentially the same, but the title was very different.

In America his book is titled "What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America."

If you get the Arabic version of the Imam's book the title will be "A Call for Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble"

Now the only part of that phrase you might not understand is the word "Dawa."

Now, that translation depends on how you define some words. I found this:
So let's replace that word with one that westerners will understand and re-state the title to the Imam's book:

"A Call For The Spread of Islam From the World Trade Center Rubble"

(source neil boortz verified through translation)

Of course, some are calling the Arabic title, when translated to English as:

A call for Sharia from the grounds of Ground Zero.

I do not know exactly what the Imam feels is the direct translation, but I would love to hear it in his own words.

Clearly, he feels the location near ground zero at being very important to this Islamic Center.

As a leader in his religion, he also feels that his religion has much to offer people, which is does. I feel that so does Christianity, and so do Judaism, and many other religions as well.

The problem of course, is how people may feel as to where an appropriate place is to offer those lessons.

I really does not matter if I think that this mosque is a monument to the Muslim terrorists. It does matter if they think so.

I believe that this Imam was clear in saying that the extremists will claim that if the mosque is moved, so as to require the title of his book to be the "Introduction of Sharia Law from near (or not so near) Ground Zero, it will incite deaths of Americans, but what he did not say, or at least I did not hear him say, that if it is built, it will show those same extremists that we are weak, and they can have a major victory over us infidels, and we are so whipped that we could not stop them from building a mosque in the rubble.

Either way, they hate us (the extremists) and we get suicide bombed in our pizza parlors and day care centers.

I do get tired of sad lost souls who feel the need to twist everything I say, and then purposefully mislead readers as to what I said, but it matters not. I feel that the readers are mostly mature enough to figure out if they are being lied to or not, and by whom. Of course, if none of that applies to you, then you need not respond, and tell me how inaccurate it is. The shame is on the liar, not he who was lied about.

[Gihgehls]

I can see how people think building the community center near the site of Ground Zero is insensitive. On the other hand, I think people are FAR too sensitive these days anyway. Maybe some acts that seem insensitive seem that way because their sensitivity radar is turned up way too high?

[Civicsman]

I do not feel that all Muslims are terrorists, never have, do not plan to start....

But you DO feel that "Muslims have not expressed condemnation en mass over the actions taken by these murders..." Why would you even think for one second that Muslims, en mass, should be responsible for condemning the actions of terrorists? Did you apologize to anyone for the actions of bomber Eric Rudolph or Cardinal Bernard Francis Law? Of course not. Yet, you believe Muslims have some responsibility to do what you will not?

Why would you reference a "mindset that some Americans have, regardless of their religion, who are appeasers and are willing to have a monumnet to the killers at ground zero...", unless you equate the Muslims who want to build Park51 with the "killers"?

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

But you DO feel that "Muslims have not expressed condemnation en mass over the actions taken by these murders..." Why would you even think for one second that Muslims, en mass, should be responsible for condemning the actions of terrorists? Did you apologize to anyone for the actions of bomber Eric Rudolph or Cardinal Bernard Francis Law? Of course not. Yet, you believe Muslims have some responsibility to do what you will not?

Why would you reference a "mindset that some Americans have, regardless of their religion, who are appeasers and are willing to have a monumnet to the killers at ground zero...", unless you equate the Muslims who want to build Park51 with the "killers"?

It doesn't matter what I feel the mosque at ground zero means, it does matter what the terrorists feel it means, and other who write books about bringing Sharia to the site of the rubble of ground zero. They are the ones who will define it as a monument to the terrorists, not me. I simply feel it is an insensitive expression of selfish desire. I point out however, that desire to express is protected by the constitution. I proudly did my time in uniform on foreign lands, doing my part to protect that constitution, and the people and land it serves. I continue to do so today.

Your conclusion in the second paragraph above that I equate the Muslims who want to build Park51 with the "killers" is just foolish, and not based on anything that came from me. I have found many statements you make to explain me and my feelings also do not have an basis in anything I feel.

As far as Muslims condemning the actions of the terrorists, and if I equally condemned the actions of Cardinal Bernard Law, is beyond ridiculous. First off, I am not a leader in the Jewish Community, even though I am Jewish. Next, I am hardly a leader in the Catholic community, and do not write books that present myself as a leader in either of those communities. Still, every one that I know and has listened to me or read my published or unpublished works, is well aware that I was very critical of the Catholic church for allowing the atrocities that it allowed, and for protecting the protectors and perpetrators. I have been published in newspapers and others sites with my views. Also, after Jim Jones, or most any other radical from any religion does some heinous act, 'in the name of Christianity, or whatever', the leaders of that religion do very frequently make many public statements that the extremist in the news does not represent their brand of religion, or their religion at all. It happens time and time again, but did not happen here.

So, when you say that I hold Muslims to a different standard than my own actions, you are telling a lie. Simple as that.

I am really trying to back off this whole line of propaganda politics for the sake of it. I will continue to try. If someone lies about another, I may have the strength to resist a response, but when someone lies about me, I do not have the capacity (maturity?) to turn the other cheek, and allow that person to continue unchallenged.

[Civicsman]

As far as the Imam in NYC being less of a punk, or more of a credible guy, I believe he authored a book, published in both English and Arabic. The book in both languages was essentially the same, but the title was very different.

In America his book is titled "What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America."

If you get the Arabic version of the Imam's book the title will be "A Call for Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble"

If you get the Arabic version of the Imam's book the title will be "A Call for Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble"

Now the only part of that phrase you might not understand is the word "Dawa."

Now, that translation depends on how you define some words. I found this:
So let's replace that word with one that westerners will understand and re-state the title to the Imam's book:

"A Call For The Spread of Islam From the World Trade Center Rubble"

It may be that the English translation of the Arabic title is "A Call for Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble". The only "source" I have found for this is from the Atlas Shrugs website run by Pamela Geller. I consider Geller an outright racist and bigot. She allegedly once suggested that Malcom X was Barack Obama's father. I don't assign any value to the hate that spews from her mouth like sewage. Free speech is the law of the land, but she gives it a bad name.

I don't have the original Arabic title, so I can't say for certain whether the translation is even close. However, "dawa" is commonly translated as "an invitation to understand Islam". Such invitations are common to many faiths, and yes, it can lead to conversions. However, used in this sense, the Arabic title could mean an invitation to understand Islam from the location of a tragedy caused by Muslim fundamentalists. Or, perhaps it is an invitation to understand Islam from a many whose mosque was (and is) literally a few blocks from ground zero.

I don't know if either of these are what was intended. However, they are far more reasonable interpretations than the "In Your Face, America!" interpretation.

I took the time to do a little research of my own about this. Amazon has a new Kindle version by this title, but under the same title references a paperback entitled "What's Right for Islam - A New Vision for Muslims and the West". The latter was published in 2004. Both share the same cover style. Therefore, I assume that the Kindle version is a slightly renamed version of the same book.

Before judging this book by it's cover, as some would have you do, I strongly suggest that readers click on the following link to Amazon, and read some excerpts from the book. http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Right-Is...4318145&sr=8-5

I don't have the whole book. However, I read the introduction and the conclusion and all of the available excerpts, including some "surprise me" sections. These provide strong evidence that author Feisal Abdul Rauf is a reasonable man, trying to build bridges between Islam and the west. The conclusion is a particularly poignant vision.

The table of contents contains a link to a religious Fatwa (decision) regarding U.S. Muslims participating in the war in Afghanistan. Read this if you read nothing else. In part, it condemns terrorizing innocent people and killing non-combatants. It specifically says that if the 9/11 attacks on the US were judged by Sharia they would be considered "crimes against society" and the punishment would be extremely harsh. It concludes by stating that Muslims in the US military can take part in battles, against whomever the country decides has perpetrated terrorism against the US.

If one ignores the text and tenor of the book, and assumes that it was the intention of the author to stick it to the US, why would he include a Fatwa that specifically says that Muslims in the US military must place their service to the United States above their religion, even when it comes to fighting other Muslims?

Anyone who is attempting to demonize Feisal Abdul Rauf is really barking up the wrong tree.

[Civicsman]

But you DO feel that "Muslims have not expressed condemnation en mass over the actions taken by these murders..." Why would you even think for one second that Muslims, en mass, should be responsible for condemning the actions of terrorists? Did you apologize to anyone for the actions of bomber Eric Rudolph or Cardinal Bernard Francis Law? Of course not. Yet, you believe Muslims have some responsibility to do what you will not?

As far as Muslims condemning the actions of the terrorists, and if I equally condemned the actions of Cardinal Bernard Law, is beyond ridiculous. First off, I am not a leader in the Jewish Community, even though I am Jewish.

My mistake. I was using Christian zealots as an example. Since you are Jewish, I must re-phrase. However, you set no limitations on Muslims having to be religious leaders to express condemnation. You wrote, ""Muslims have not expressed condemnation en mass over the actions taken by these murders...". Despite lots of flailing, you have still not provided a coherent response for why you think Muslims, "en mass", have that responsibility.

So, let us use the crimes of Baruch Goldstein as an appropriate example of Jewish extremism. Goldstein was an American Jew who went to Israel and slaughtered 29 Muslims and wounded 150 more during prayers in 1994. Have Jews (in your words) "expressed condemnation en mass over the actions taken by these murders"? I think not.

Following your logic, does this failure of Jews "en mass" to condemn the murders call into question whether Jews actually support Goldstein's massacre, just as your poorly veiled allegation does regarding Muslims?

Let me be perfectly clear that I do not believe this. Rather, I am simply following your logic that questions the allegiance of Muslims based on whether they adequately condemned the 9/11 atrocities.

Your conclusion in the second paragraph above that I equate the Muslims who want to build Park51 with the "killers" is just foolish, and not based on anything that came from me.

It most certainly DID come from you. Nobody made that statement but good ol' KSagal. Your quote is below. To successfully flip-flop you will need to coherently explain that the "monumnet" you referred to is not Park51. Since that is specifically what was being discussed, good luck with that.

...the mindset that some Americans have, regardless of their religion, who are appeasers and are willing to have a monumnet to the killers at ground zero, rather than to stand on the principal that it is hallowed ground.

[KSagal]

By twisting words so well, I can only imagine how great your dreadlocks look! That kind of twist is a real talent.

You forgot to mention all that I wrote about cardinal law, and the catholic church, which was a direct contradiction to your lie about me, when you went on to accuse me of not condemning something I never heard about. Smooth move, mister exlax.

I suppose I should be chided for making believe I could have an intelligent debate with you. I apologize.

[Civicsman]

Smooth move, mister exlax.

1. You have still not provided a coherent response for why you think Muslims, "en mass", have that responsibility.

2. To successfully flip-flop you will need to coherently explain that the "monumnet" you referred to is not Park51.