Mosques No Where Near Ground Zero Meet Stiff Resistance

[Bells]

Mischaracterization. Although I do see more clearly on that evidence now.

In other words, you trolled until someone else had t point it out to you.

?? I didn't ask if you had done so, but rather encouraged you to do so now. As in in the present. Was my phrasing not clear?

Why should I complain about you Geoff?

Warn them or add demerits. Ongoing behaviour should be punished by bans. By way of your oblique threat, I remind you that this is not what I have done, as the record will illustrate. But again: I encourage you to do so if you feel otherwise.

The way in which you cut out a chunk of what I wrote so that I read as you want it to read.. and you accuse me of "Mischaracterization"?

It is exactly what you have done. You even admitted to doing it.

But we need to look at the broader picture. How should we treat those who are so intellectually dishonest? And it is something that all of us moderators and administrators will have to decide. I have not threatened you. I have not even brought up your name in regards to this issue in the mod forum. So why do you feel threatened by me? If you feel threatened by me, then please let Tiassa know and I am sure he will give me the slap down for threatening you if I have done so.

But this is a highly special case, as a review of the particulars will show. It isn't "any old mosque" nor "any old locale" nor "any old builder" nor "any old support". It fails all these points. If it had been one or two, I think no one would much care, and perhaps that would be appropriate. But not in this situation.

You consider this a special case. But what of other actual Mosques that are being threatened and protests staged at their building sites?

Do you want to know what disturbs me about the protests against this? My honest opinion? It is that people are using the deaths of innocent civilians to further their own political agenda and to further push hatred and bigotry against another group. There is no proof that there is anything nefarious about this centre. All we have is a lot of suspicion leading to threats of violence and actual violence towards other innocent people.

I don't know if you have ever been looked down upon or viewed as being secondary in society. I can assure you, it is a disheartening feeling and a huge weight to have to carry. The hatred and suspicion of Muslims is becoming more entrenched in society and this thread is a perfect example of just how far some people will go. Attacking a man because he is suspected of being a Muslim? That kind of behaviour harks back to darker times in our history where persecuted people ended up being rounded up and destroyed. While I hope that we will never be like that again, the behaviour and actions that led to that are frighteningly similar in a lot of ways.

At the end of the day, those against this, such as you for example, are going to cite a plethora of reasons as to why it should not be built. But at the core, the reason is simply because it is Islamic. You can twist whichever way in the wind to try and pretty it up by saying it is the funding, the location, that they should be kept out up to where the dust settles. But at the end of the day and at its core it is the simple fact they are Muslims. As you have been good enough to remind us through this whole disgusting debate, it was not radical strippers who flew those planes, when I brought up the immorality of having a strip club on the same block and the same distance to Ground Zero, when you discussed the immorality of the location of this Centre. At the end of the day, people are protesting it, and attacking people in the street because of a hatred and suspicion of Muslims.

That is why this disturbs me.

That people are willing and wanting to completely ignore and set aside one's Constitutional rights because of suspicion and because they are Muslims and therefore should not and can not be trusted. This is what all this comes down to. No matter how much you pretty it up, that is the central core of this issue.

Now, I find you to be intellectually dishonest. That is my personal feelings about you in this debate. It has been pointed out by others who have disagreed with you about this issue in the other thread.

And which is a violation of the forum rules. That's all right, though; I'm not too offended.

If it is against the forum rules, then report me. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. My posts are as they were posted.

Nope. I assumed it was unrelated to the argument. Turns out, it wasn't. You will now crucify me for a mistake? As you like.

Let me get this straight. You are saying you assumed it was unrelated even though I repeatedly and explicitly advised you of what they contained and explained how it was related to the argument? You kept demanding proof and links and refused to read them. That was not a mistake. That was trolling.

Well, you do attack me with the most tenuous link to my arguments. I should point out that I don't feel we should be carrying on another thread.

Then why virtually dare me to respond to you in this thread?

I have not attacked you. I have questioned your reasoning and provided links which you apparently could not be bothered to read and whereupon you then decided to act like a troll.

All right: good. We can agree here

You can't even bring yourself to condemn those people for attacking that man on the street because they thought he was a Muslim. All you could come out with was that it was 'regrettable'.

We don't agree.

You have proven yourself to be utterly dishonest and hypocritical in this debate.

 

[Bells]

Not true in a pink fit.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0810/emerson082410.php3

Umm what he has said is common knowledge and known fact.

So what is your point?

 

[joepistole]

A lot of fuss has been made about the funding for the proposed Islamic center. And as stated earlier, as long as the funding is legal, I could care less. But some people do not want it funded by the Saudi's.

For some reason it matters to them if the Saudi's fund this project. These same people don't seem to have a problem with the Saudi's funding their news sources (e.g. Fox News) and they don't have a problem with Saudi's funding their poitical candidates (e.g. Republican Party & george II). So why is it Saudi funding of an Islamic Center is such a big deal?

 

[GeoffP]

In other words, you trolled until someone else had t point it out to you.

No.

Why should I complain about you Geoff?

Er...because you think I'm trolling? Or not? Were you trolling when you accused me of trolling? Let me know.

The way in which you cut out a chunk of what I wrote so that I read as you want it to read.. and you accuse me of "Mischaracterization"?

Sorry: what are you referring to here? Would it be different from just ignoring what I write and deriving your own skewed interpretation?

It is exactly what you have done. You even admitted to doing it.

Actually, that's false as I described it. My admission concerned ignoring what I thought was an irrelevant argument, not "[cutting] out a chunk of what [you] wrote so that [you] read as want it to read".

But we need to look at the broader picture. How should we treat those who are so intellectually dishonest? And it is something that all of us moderators and administrators will have to decide. I have not threatened you. I have not even brought up your name in regards to this issue in the mod forum. So why do you feel threatened by me? If you feel threatened by me, then please let Tiassa know and I am sure he will give me the slap down for threatening you if I have done so.

Oh, I'm sure. Bells, it's just a little disingenous to bring this issue up in a thread where at least half your argument has been composed of calling me dishonest, and/or accusing me of editing your comments, among other things.

You consider this a special case. But what of other actual Mosques that are being threatened and protests staged at their building sites?

I believe I've addressed this several times. It's quite a simple answer, really. But this raises a wider question: would you accept it, mischaracterize it or ignore it?

I acknowledge your point about minorities in society. At the same time, it does not behoove us to permit the dissemination of radicalism; it is a road we have been down before - and since we're discussing societal outcomes, it leads to this. Minority opinon can become majority opinion over relatively short time frames. I leave it to your own humanitarianism to evaluate the relative risks at each stage and in each area of this engagement.

But at the end of the day and at its core it is the simple fact they are Muslims. As you have been good enough to remind us through this whole disgusting debate, it was not radical strippers who flew those planes, when I brought up the immorality of having a strip club on the same block and the same distance to Ground Zero, when you discussed the immorality of the location of this Centre. At the end of the day, people are protesting it, and attacking people in the street because of a hatred and suspicion of Muslims.

You'll note I said "radical" strippers. I think I also pointed out that I'd have to be sure that the stripper club wouldn't contain similar radicals, and so forth, in parallel of our discussion. If not, then let's be frank here: it should be implicit, and there's little excuse for making such an argument.

That is why this disturbs me.

Then I am sorry that you are so disturbed.

That people are willing and wanting to completely ignore and set aside one's Constitutional rights because of suspicion and because they are Muslims and therefore should not and can not be trusted. This is what all this comes down to. No matter how much you pretty it up, that is the central core of this issue.

Not really, no.

Now, I find you to be intellectually dishonest. That is my personal feelings about you in this debate. It has been pointed out by others who have disagreed with you about this issue in the other thread.

Then I'm sorry you and they are so confused. I have attempted to be as plain as possible.

If it is against the forum rules, then report me. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. My posts are as they were posted.

Let me get this straight. You are saying you assumed it was unrelated even though I repeatedly and explicitly advised you of what they contained and explained how it was related to the argument? You kept demanding proof and links and refused to read them. That was not a mistake. That was trolling.

"Kept demanding" implies it happened more than once. And you'll forgive me for not taking you at your word in this debate, since you do not do likewise. It's one thing to be briefly offended at my assumption, Bells: it does not follow that this becomes some major point of argument for you. As I said - report away.

Then why virtually dare me to respond to you in this thread?

Simple: insurance. I believed you might have a similar go at me here and wished to assure the reader that I knew what one of the possible outcomes was.

I have not attacked you.

In the other thread, you jumped out at me without warning, and engaged in personal attacks and trolling my arguments. So I can't say that I believe you about this either.

You can't even bring yourself to condemn those people for attacking that man on the street because they thought he was a Muslim. All you could come out with was that it was 'regrettable'.

I should have thought this was clear: I condemn them in the strongest possible way. Meanwhile, you brush off misogyny for a mysterious reason that one can only assume depends on the source.

We don't agree.

Tsk tsk. You seem to have worked yourself up into a lather here: we cannot now agree? I agreed with your general perspective in that paragraph. But I now cannot?

You have proven yourself to be utterly dishonest and hypocritical in this debate.

This is like the pot calling the plate black.

 

[GeoffP]

A lot of fuss has been made about the funding for the proposed Islamic center. And as stated earlier, as long as the funding is legal, I could care less. But some people do not want it funded by the Saudi's.

For some reason it matters to them if the Saudi's fund this project. These same people don't seem to have a problem with the Saudi's funding their news sources (e.g. Fox News) and they don't have a problem with Saudi's funding their poitical candidates (e.g. Republican Party & george II). So why is it Saudi funding of an Islamic Center is such a big deal?

You'll forgive me if I mention again that both are disturbing.

 

[iceaura]

For some reason it matters to them if the Saudi's fund this project. These same people don't seem to have a problem with the Saudi's funding their news sources (e.g. Fox News) and they don't have a problem with Saudi's funding their poitical candidates (e.g. Republican Party & george II).

Are you OK - completely - with ruling class Saudis funding both the Republican Party and Fox News?

 

[joepistole]

Are you OK - completely - with ruling class Saudis funding both the Republican Party and Fox News?

NO I am not.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I have watched both Saudi TV and Fox.
Both are weird, but would anyone say that they have a common ethos?

 

[Shadow1]

.

do you know that saudi arabia is the n°2 or 10,[ or between, (anyway i forgot it, i readed it somewhere, about, top 10 things you didint know)] in fighting terrorism funding.

 

[Shadow1]

.

I have watched both Saudi TV and Fox.
Both are weird, but would anyone say that they have a common ethos?

how exactly? well, just asking, never watched a saudi channel.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

How can Saudi TV be weird.

I'll give you an example.
I once watched an old Western film on Saudi TV. I worked there for a while.
I'd seen the film before, so I knew what it was about, but if you had not seen the film it would have been completely unintelligible due to censorship.

The subject of the film was that a city slicker had inherited a whore house in a Western town.

During that film, it was never explained what was inherited.
and they never showed any woman.

 

[joepistole]

How can Saudi TV be weird.

I'll give you an example.
I once watched an old Western film on Saudi TV. I worked there for a while.
I'd seen the film before, so I knew what it was about, but if you had not seen the film it would have been completely unintelligible due to censorship.

The subject of the film was that a city slicker had inherited a whore house in a Western town.

During that film, it was never explained what was inherited.
and they never showed any woman.

Sounds like Fox...heavily edited. But of course Fox does have a penchant for petite young blonde women.

 

[Brian Foley]

Burn, Witch, Burn!: America Rages Against Islam

Islamophobia is sweeping the nation—and it couldn’t have come at a better time. Just when the American people were starting to become distracted with trivial issues like the potential stock market crash, the re-branding of the war in Iraq, and the ongoing environmental disaster in the Gulf—along comes a crisis of Biblical proportions, that threatens to destroy the moral fiber of America itself, and deliver its Christian population into the diabolical hands of an Islamic dictatorship ruled under the precepts of Sharia law.

Look carefully at the protest sign, which reads "You can build a mosque at Ground Zero when we can build a synagogue in Mecca."

Seems to me some minority is capitalizing on this issue for their own agenda.

 

[GeoffP]

Rather, it's a reasonable tradeoff.

This rapprochement and understanding thing works two ways, not one way.

 

[S.A.M.]

How can Saudi TV be weird.

I'll give you an example.
I once watched an old Western film on Saudi TV. I worked there for a while.
I'd seen the film before, so I knew what it was about, but if you had not seen the film it would have been completely unintelligible due to censorship.

The subject of the film was that a city slicker had inherited a whore house in a Western town.

During that film, it was never explained what was inherited.
and they never showed any woman.

But they have porn on cable.

 

[Tiassa]

Details

This again. This is a very bizarre avenue of discussion; like a tea party down the looking glass, but this time with roofies.

Take it up with Rich Brooks. I would agree that, in the larger scheme, this isn't so great a detail.

But more to the point, the hullaballoo over the "Ground Zero Mosque" is nothing more than cynical electioneering, a cheap but apparently effective attempt to exploit American xenophobia. Steven Brust once wrote, "Just because they really are out to get you doesn't mean you aren't paranoid, and though his context was far removed from American wars and turbaned terrorists, I think there remains some fair application to the present situation.

But, as you chose this particular focus, we can certainly consider it:

The Pentagon space is a multi-faith centre. Explicitly. All faiths use it; there is a holy water font, prayer rugs and Bibles there.

As Matthew Dennis, a history professor at University of Oregon, wrote earlier this week for The Register-Guard:

Americans who aggressively oppose a proposed Islamic cultural center in New York City two blocks from ground zero seem determined to confirm Dr. Johnson's dictionary definition: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said, for example, "I think it's inappropriate. ... From a patriotic standpoint, it's hallowed ground, it's sacred ground, and we should respect that. We shouldn't ... degrade or disrespect that in any way."

How might a 13-story community center that will include a conference hall, a culinary school, a basketball court, a swimming pool, and, yes, a place of worship that caters to the Muslim community (but is open to all), constitute a degradation? ....

.... We should reject guilt by association — especially the imaginary (and bigoted) association of American Muslims with the likes of al Qaeda. The Department of Defense certainly recognizes the difference, having scheduled Muslim prayer services in the Pentagon's memorial chapel that was built near where 184 died in 2001.​

One thing that strikes me about this whole issue is that for all the cynicism Americans show both politicians and the press, we're still willing to allow those groups to establish the boundaries of debate; perhaps it is simply more entertaining than actually attending reality.
____________________

Notes:

Brust, Steven. Issola. New York: Tor, 2001.

Dennis, Matthew. "Fear and ignorance fuel opposition to New York mosque". The Register Guard. August 25, 2010. Registerguard.com. August 28, 2010. http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cm...t-guestviewpointhead-viewpoint-writername.csp

 

[Bells]

Er...because you think I'm trolling? Or not? Were you trolling when you accused me of trolling? Let me know.

I personally think your intellectual dishonesty is tantamount to trolling. For example:

Sorry: what are you referring to here? Would it be different from just ignoring what I write and deriving your own skewed interpretation?

You sometimes have a tendency to remove parts of people's posts and quote them so that it constitutes a complete misrepresentation of what they were actually saying. And then playing the victim.. For example:

Oh, I'm sure. Bells, it's just a little disingenous to bring this issue up in a thread where at least half your argument has been composed of calling me dishonest, and/or accusing me of editing your comments, among other things.

In light of current discussions taking part in this forum, it is a valid question.

I believe I've addressed this several times. It's quite a simple answer, really. But this raises a wider question: would you accept it, mischaracterize it or ignore it?

I acknowledge your point about minorities in society. At the same time, it does not behoove us to permit the dissemination of radicalism; it is a road we have been down before - and since we're discussing societal outcomes, it leads to this. Minority opinon can become majority opinion over relatively short time frames. I leave it to your own humanitarianism to evaluate the relative risks at each stage and in each area of this engagement.

You have yet to show any proof that radical Islam would even be preached at in that particular mosque.

You'll note I said "radical" strippers. I think I also pointed out that I'd have to be sure that the stripper club wouldn't contain similar radicals, and so forth, in parallel of our discussion. If not, then let's be frank here: it should be implicit, and there's little excuse for making such an argument.

And again, you have no proof that the people attending this centre will be radicals.

What you disingenously fail and refuse to acknowledge is the hypocrisy of the it's "Ground Zero" argument, or as you put it, hallowed and sacred where the dust settled. In the words of Larry Gellman:

And now, nine years after 9/11, Fox News and opportunistic politicians are choosing to revive a new wave of bigotry and resentment against the millions of law-abiding, tax-paying Muslim Americans (thousands of whom serve in our military and dozens of whom were killed in the 9/11 attacks) under the guise of showing respect for the Real American victims at the World Trade Center.

The anger and hatred and lies being spread about Muslims and the leaders of the cultural center are yet another embarrassment to our country. The notion that an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory three blocks from Ground Zero is "hallowed ground" while there are already two strips clubs operating even closer to the site without any concern is yet another indication of how our sense of fear and confusion has eliminated any pretense of honesty or fairness in how we think or what we today call journalism.

(Source)

That is what you are repeatedly not getting or refusing to recognise.

Not really, no.

How so?

We have a group of people hell bent on denying another group the right to build what they want on their land based solely on religious bigotry. They are constitutionally allowed to practice their religion where they so please. They own that land and should be allowed to build what they want on it. Denying them that right based solely on their religion is denying them their constitutional rights. Add to that, the hypocrisy behind the it is "Ground Zero" argument, when one considers that there are strip clubs closer to the actual site of Ground Zero and that people can even bet on races a few steps from Ground Zero...

And then, to top it off, we have these very people ignore the plan to build this centre for 6 months and then miraculously, when campaigning starts to heat for November, suddenly make it a political issue.

If it is against the forum rules, then report me. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. My posts are as they were posted.

.. Playing the martyr?

"Kept demanding" implies it happened more than once. And you'll forgive me for not taking you at your word in this debate, since you do not do likewise. It's one thing to be briefly offended at my assumption, Bells: it does not follow that this becomes some major point of argument for you. As I said - report away.

You repeatedly demand proof and have admitted that you just can't be bothered looking at the links provided.

Simple: insurance. I believed you might have a similar go at me here and wished to assure the reader that I knew what one of the possible outcomes was.

When you deliberately seek out your enemy and goad them, you really have no place to play the martyr or victim.

I was participating in this thread before you showed up in it. So really, virtually begging me to have a go at you makes you a sad little man starved for attention.

In the other thread, you jumped out at me without warning, and engaged in personal attacks and trolling my arguments. So I can't say that I believe you about this either.

I trolled your arguments by providing you with links which you admitted you didn't bother looking at, even when you would ask for proof?

You even went so far to dismiss the loss of a man I had known since childhood and spent the better part of my youth knowing as we grew up together. I guess I should not be surprised. You seem to take quite a bit of amusement at an attempted rape. :shrug:

I should have thought this was clear: I condemn them in the strongest possible way. Meanwhile, you brush off misogyny for a mysterious reason that one can only assume depends on the source.

How have I brushed it off?

What you don't seem to quite grasp is that it is attitudes such as yours, one that breeds fear and suspicion, that led to this particular man being attacked in the street because they suspected he was a Muslim. You might condemn it as much as you want. But what led those people to attack him is what you have been arguing for on this forum.

Tsk tsk. You seem to have worked yourself up into a lather here: we cannot now agree? I agreed with your general perspective in that paragraph. But I now cannot?

Refer to above as to why we do not agree.

 

[GeoffP]

I personally think your intellectual dishonesty is tantamount to trolling. For example:

Sorry, my statement was completely accurate.

You sometimes have a tendency to remove parts of people's posts and quote them so that it constitutes a complete misrepresentation of what they were actually saying.

A lie: or demonstrate such a chain of events. "Sometimes" is a good word also - is it occurring here, or are you referring to some imagined event in the long-ago past.

You have yet to show any proof that radical Islam would even be preached at in that particular mosque.

I have already described this: my suspicion is that if the mosque is Saudi-funded, there is a very good chance that it will be radical. I would like Rauf to disclose completely and unreservedly his funding sources. It isn't a big request, really. It's strange that it generates so much controversy. As it is, however, we already have $300K being donated by a Saudi prince, so I think the issue is looking worse and worse for your "side".

What you disingenously fail and refuse to acknowledge is the hypocrisy of the it's "Ground Zero" argument, or as you put it, hallowed and sacred where the dust settled. In the words of Larry Gellman:

"Hallowed and sacred"? Where, exactly, have I said that?

As for its "spiritual locale": http://bigpeace.com/mtodd/2010/08/24/the-mosque-is-at-ground-zero/

That is what you are repeatedly not getting or refusing to recognise.

Or - - disagreeing with you. Which is worse?

We have a group of people hell bent on denying another group the right to build what they want on their land based solely on religious bigotry. They are constitutionally allowed to practice their religion where they so please. They own that land and should be allowed to build what they want on it. Denying them that right based solely on their religion is denying them their constitutional rights. Add to that, the hypocrisy behind the it is "Ground Zero" argument, when one considers that there are strip clubs closer to the actual site of Ground Zero and that people can even bet on races a few steps from Ground Zero...

I've never understood your latter line of argument here: but they bet and strip near Ground Zero, Geoff! Surely we could have a Saudi-funded mosque there! Well, when radical jockey or radical strippers attack the World Trade Center, then by all means we should avoid giving them the opportunity to express radical opinions on jockeism or nudity near the site of their attack. As it is, we're concerned with possible radical Islamism. Still, I'm sure these others will have their day also. If it turns out that they are indeed radical Islamists, then I would support any legal means to block their construction, obviously. But let's read that again, so that it sinks in: legal means. Merely waving the Constitution of a nation of which you are not a member in front of the forum is not a valid counter-argument: it is not as universal as made out. It has limits.

And then, to top it off, we have these very people ignore the plan to build this centre for 6 months and then miraculously, when campaigning starts to heat for November, suddenly make it a political issue.

This is a fine idea, but not my point.

.. Playing the martyr?

LMAO - that entire line was accidentally left in from your post, above. Sorry - who's playing the martyr again?

You repeatedly demand proof and have admitted that you just can't be bothered looking at the links provided.

Misrepresentation.

When you deliberately seek out your enemy and goad them, you really have no place to play the martyr or victim.

I was participating in this thread before you showed up in it. So really, virtually begging me to have a go at you makes you a sad little man starved for attention.

Ha - miscomprehension. I put that statement in as a form of insurance. I'd noticed you'd already posted in that thread, and I wanted to be sure I held the higher ground in case this happened. And it has.

You even went so far to dismiss the loss of a man I had known since childhood and spent the better part of my youth knowing as we grew up together. I guess I should not be surprised. You seem to take quite a bit of amusement at an attempted rape.

The latter I have apologized repeatedly for. I expect you bring it up presumably because you still feel victimized, and not to score points in this debate. As for the former, this is his first invocation and since I don't find you a particularly honest poster, I doubt at your statements. I suppose I should just take you at your word.

How have I brushed it off?

In that you consider the report of the President of the Muslim Canadian Congress to be fallaciously reporting a threat.

What you don't seem to quite grasp is that it is attitudes such as yours, one that breeds fear and suspicion, that led to this particular man being attacked in the street because they suspected he was a Muslim. You might condemn it as much as you want. But what led those people to attack him is what you have been arguing for on this forum.

Wrong again, unless you can demonstrate where I have been arguing for demonization, vigilante justice, persecution or mob rule.

Good luck with that next project.

By contrast, should I assume that your attitudes are perfectly in line with those who verbally threaten and abuse women? Or are your attitudes more in line with religious leaders seeking to impose arbitrary punitive restrictions on women? You might condemn such actions as much as you want...or else brush them off, I guess. But what leads these people to restrict, oppress and even kill women is what you have been arguing for on this forum.

You do raise a curious idea, however: should we oppose nothing? Opposing anything does sound like an attitude that would breed fear and suspicion. I suppose the context and basis isn't important. All hail the new era of complete credulity!

 

[S.A.M.]

A Must-See

Jon Stewart on the Mosque-rade

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-16-2010/mosque-erade

 

[GeoffP]

Oh: some other interesting factoids on Sharif El-Gamal, the builder who is reported as having threatened the head of the MCC for asking too many questions about the mosque (which Bells doesn't quite believe):

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...ory_of_runins_with_the_law.html#ixzz0xvR2Z7ie

Sounds quite the gentleman.