WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[MobBoss]

They're no more terrorists than Israel are.

Ridiculous. I dont recall the IDF using suicide vests and targeting markets and weddings....

War criminals would be a more accurate description. For both of them.

More arguable, but still not very at least in the case of the IDF.

I don't even know why we're discussing this though. He doesn't have to condemn them at all because they have nothing to do with him.

Wow. So moderate muslims shouldnt condemn the terrorist actions of fanatical muslims? No wonder people wouldnt want that mosque built.

How humble of you

Has nothing to do with it. Either you stap on a bomb vest and kill people or you dont. Hezbollah does that, and its simply a fact that they do. You dont want to call that terrorism for some reason, thats your business, but I sure as hell call it terrorism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ridiculous. I dont recall the IDF using suicide vests and targeting markets and weddings....

Why are you so hung on the particular tactics used by Islamists? Those are hardly the definition of "terrorism".

 

[MobBoss]

Why are you so hung on the particular tactics used by Islamists? Those are hardly the definition of "terrorism".

Actually, your're wrong. The tactics and weapons used by terrorists are precisely a big part of defining terrorism.

Apparently you are unaware of that...

How is that relevant?

Its just as relevant as your own irrelevant question.

Did the Provisional IRA?

Was that person a member of the IRA?

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, your're wrong. The tactics and weapons used by terrorists are precisely a big part of defining terrorism.

I meant that you keep referencing the particular tactics of Islamists as an all-encompassing definition. It doesn't take a suicide vest to be a terrorist, which is what my IRA comment was in aid of.

 

[JollyRoger]

Did he have a bomb vest and kill people in a market?

Have you considered that you do not necessarily have to have a bomb vest and kill people in a market to be considered a terrorist? I would consider the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists, but they did not have bomb vest and did not kill people in a market.

 

[MobBoss]

I meant that you keep referencing the particular tactics of Islamists as an all-encompassing definition. It doesn't take a suicide vest to be a terrorist, which is what my IRA comment was in aid of.

They arent just the particular tactics of islamic terrorists, but of terrorists of all stripes. You just equate them with Islamic terrorism because thats the most common kind in the world today...

All I have done is simply and truthfully given examples of the kind of terrorist acts condoned and executed by Hezbollah. Thats simply a matter of the record. You choose to ignore these facts regarding terrorist acts and refuse to label them as a terrorist organization despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. /shrug.

Have you considered that you do not necessarily have to have a bomb vest and kill people in a market to be considered a terrorist? I would consider the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists, but they did not have bomb vest and did not kill people in a market.

Thats why I mentioned several reasons earlier in regards to Hezbollah, not just the bomb vests, and by all means recognize that what I offered only a slice of the pie (so to speak).

 

[Camikaze]

However, I have said, as a Christian, I have to deal with and be cognizent of situations when Christians are put in a bad light...i.e. the Rev. Ted issue. And there are plenty who view such hypocrisy as not being attributed to said individual, but to all christians in general, regardless of denomination or sect.

If I have to deal with it, why shouldnt muslims? Answer: they should.

Dude, the principles in play here are the exact same ones that would laugh at opposition to the building of Christian run schools on the grounds of insensitivity. Obviously, if a Christian group were to build a school, and people objected to it on those grounds, they would be effectively laughed away. I assume you would also fervently disagree with such a sentiment (and for the record, would you agree that a Christian school should not be built if the only objection was people thinking it was insensitive to the victims of child abuse in churches in, say, Belgium?). Why is it that you can agree with the protesters here, but would not have a bar of the argument in that case?

 

[MobBoss]

Dude, the principles in play here are the exact same ones that would laugh at opposition to the building of Christian run schools on the grounds of insensitivity. Obviously, if a Christian group were to build a school, and people objected to it on those grounds, they would be effectively laughed away.

Christian schools and mosques dont share the same status in the USA, as around 80% or so of the nation considers itself christian.

But I have already said if the roles were reversed, I wouldnt advocate a christian church to be built either under that hypothetical.

I assume you would also fervently disagree with such a sentiment (and for the record, would you agree that a Christian school should not be built if the only objection was people thinking it was insensitive to the victims of child abuse in churches in, say, Belgium?).

How about a better example, like in India where christian missioniaries have been burned alive before?

There comes a point of diminishing returns where a proposed action actually hurts your cause more than helps it. Are you familiar with the term?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I will cease to give Imam Rauf grief when he decides to grow a pair and actually call a terrorist organization precisely that....a terrorist organization. Then I will actually start to see he is taking a stand against Islamic terrorism. Until then...its just talk.

I guess you are referring to this answer in an interview:

On 77 WABC radio on June 18, the talk radio host Aaron Klein asked him, “Do you believe that the State Department is correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization?”

There ensued a long conversation with many interruptions, in which Mr. Abdul Rauf said:

“Well, I’m not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. ... I am a bridge builder. My work is ... I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. ... Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it. ... I am a supporter of the State of Israel.”

Don't know if this will do, and I suspect it won't for obvious reasons (prove me wrong, I know you love to ), but this is from the Cordoba site:

“Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his ... hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.”

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions

 

[useless]

I guess that sorts that!

 

[Camikaze]

Christian schools and mosques dont share the same status in the USA, as around 80% or so of the nation considers itself christian.

So it's okay to come up with preposterous objections if it's a minority?

But I have already said if the roles were reversed, I wouldnt advocate a christian church to be built either under that hypothetical.

So if America was 80% Muslim, you wouldn't advocate for a Christian church to be built if some were saying that it would be insensitive to the victims of child abuse in Belgium (to use a specific for this hypothetical)?

How about a better example, like in India where christian missioniaries have been burned alive before?

WTH has that got to do with anything?

There comes a point of diminishing returns where a proposed action actually hurts your cause more than helps it. Are you familiar with the term?

I'm curious to know where exactly you draw the line where the diminishing returns of living up to a pretty basic and important principle become outweighed by the sensibilities of people opposed to such a basic and important principle.

Should this also apply to, say, the principle of justice? If enough people say someone is guilty of a crime, there is no need to proceed with a trial, because the returns gained (that being justice) are outweighed by the trouble caused by the public's vigilantism?

What if someone has a political point to make? Should they be prohibited from doing so if the benefit derived from them saying something is outweighed by the opposition's desire for criticism to not be made?

You can't just forget about principles and use a self-manufactured excuse ("we are opposed to the mosque, because we are opposed to the mosque") to deny people what is right.

 

[civver_764]

Ridiculous. I dont recall the IDF using suicide vests and targeting markets and weddings....

Why would they do that when they have bombs and tanks?

Wow. So moderate muslims shouldnt condemn the terrorist actions of fanatical muslims?

Of course not. They have nothing to do with each other. Simply being the same religion doesn't cut it. Or do you specifically denounce every bad thing a christian has ever done?

 

[MobBoss]

Of course not. They have nothing to do with each other.

Ridiculous and unsupportable metric.

Simply being the same religion doesn't cut it. Or do you specifically denounce every bad thing a christian has ever done?

Actually...YES. When christians do bad things, it makes all christians look bad. The same thing goes with any group, or religion, etc.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Mobbie, were you happy with the quote I found on the Cordoba site?

 

[MobBoss]

Mobbie, were you happy with the quote I found on the Cordoba site?

Certainly a step in the right direction, and I wish there were a lot more than just that. By that I mean I would like to see more such condemnation from moderate muslims than a single byline on a website. The media should be carrying it as major news - Imam says Hamas is a terrorist organization...etc. If they did, it would do a lot to quell opposition to projects like the one in Manhatten. I also hope the meaning was genuine and not simply proffered as appeasement due to the mosque opposition...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ah yes, the media "Imam doesn't like terrorism" as headline just doesn't sell.

 

[MobBoss]

Ah yes, the media "Imam doesn't like terrorism" as headline just doesn't sell.

Maybe not, but ensuring that moderate muslims are at least heard when they oppose terrorism should be important, since the prevailing perception is that they are rather apathetic to begin with.

 

[Haseri]

But that doesn't pull in viewers.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Maybe not, but ensuring that moderate muslims are at least heard when they oppose terrorism should be important, since the prevailing perception is that they are rather apathetic to begin with.

That isn't the "prevailing perception" at all, except perhaps amongst the far-right.

Take this particular case, for instance. They really screwed the pooch by picking a Muslim who was GWB's official representative to the Middle East to discuss the problem of terrorism as it relates to the US as their example of someone who is "rather apathetic" about the topic.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe not, but ensuring that moderate muslims are at least heard when they oppose terrorism should be important, since the prevailing perception is that they are rather apathetic to begin with.

Well, it helps to know Muslims personally with regard to perceptions. If one's perceptions are formed purely by what you get from the media, it helps to realize that the media's role in society isn't painting an accurate picture of it, but pointing out the anomalies within it. And they are well aware that scandal sells, so why would the media try to put things into perspective when that would hurt their business?

Journalism has strayed from their former role towards maintaining a successful business. Which they have every right to do of course, it's simply up to us to realize that. But we have jobs, kids, and a million other things on our minds, so we take the news for granted simply because we don't have time to fact check everything (which used to be the role of journalism). So it's quite understandable why people get carried away by sensationalist reporting.

Paper news can be the exception, but by the time they roll out the story with backgrounds and contexts, opinions are already formed by what we get on the interwebs and television news.

That isn't the "prevailing perception" at all, except perhaps amongst the far-right.

This isn't a left-right thing in my opinion. This is simply a result of 10 years of hearing muslim, islam, Imam, etc and seeing terrorism, violence and death when reporting about Iraq, Afghanistan.

It's simply conditioning.