Mosques No Where Near Ground Zero Meet Stiff Resistance

Interesting. Did they build any during WW2?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean in the concentration camps where we sent most Japanese-American citizens?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While it would be wrong to minimize the injustice done to Japanese Americans during WW2, calling internment camps concentration camps does an injustice to those who suffered thru actual concentration camps:
Concentration Camp:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it doesn't. Calling them something else does. They concentrated a certain type of people in one place. Concentration camp doesn't automatically mean extermination camp.

 

I suppose you could call the Japanese Internment camps concentration camps. But when the term "concentration camp" is used in the context of WW2 it generally refers to Nazi death camps.

Anyway, we're getting a bit off topic here. I seriously doubt that, as they were building camps to intern people of Japanese decent, they were also building giant Shinto Shrines at Pearl Harbor.

 

Well, we weren't at war with Shintoism and we are not at war with Islam now.

 

how would you know. considering shinto's tendency toward animistic beliefs a giant shinto shrine could be mostly untouch natural land.

 

You don't have to be in a camp to get like that. Remember the sanctions in Iraq before the US occupation?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You mean there was no bigotry involved in attacking random Muslim country for 9/11? All those flushed Qur'ans, beaten to death Muslims, "price is right" infants, "birth pangs of a new Middle East", "we don't do body counts" and waterboarding of civilian Iraqis/Afghans was completely unrelated to their religion?

Remember this?

Texas Terrorism Trial Ties Boston Mosque Leaders to Extremist Network

 

Surprise, surprise ....

In truth, I have to agree with S.A.M. on this one: Why is this surprising?

Or, to consider the question more specifically:

Of the first of those points, the steady drip of minor attacks and incompetent plots only represent the greater part of Islam to those who are inclined to view Muslims in such a context. While it isn't necessarily a helpful point, it is worth noting that those folks don't seem to appreciate it when the idea runs the other way, such as inflating President Bush's fraudulent case for war in Iraq and odd religious zeal to represent all Americans°.

Of the second, time is the important factor. Metaphysically, time is necessary for any change to occur. Conversely, change occurs as time passes. We might ask, then, what all has occurred through the period since 9/11? Certainly, the wars are obvious, but so also should be the concerted effort by various interests to paint Islam as the face of evil in the world.

And though this effort is, ultimately, fallacious, it nonetheless demonstrates certain effects as time passes. To wit, were we not entangled in an ugly conflict with people who happen to be Muslim, would the stupid insistence that President Obama° is secretly Muslim really be so effective as to double the number of Americans who believe it? Was there not a constant "drib drab" of insinuation about the president's nationality and religion, how many of the people who have come to consider the point in the last year would have bothered?

In the time that has passed since 9/11, the repeated, fallacious rhetorical attacks against Islam have had some effect. Indeed, this is part of the reason there are many who disdain such talk, and scorn those who would defend, excuse, or otherwise legitimize such scurrilous rhetoric.

It is my general opinion that those surprised by the ferocity of Islamophobia in the United States either have some stake in advancing that fear, or simply haven't been paying attention.

Rich Brooks asserted over the weekend that mosque opponents "never attacked the routine Muslim worship services at another site of the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon", though I'm sure we could, if we looked, find someone who wanted to make an issue of it. Additionally, the phrase "Ground Zero Mosque" is a deliberate misnomer; the Park51 development proposal is not at the former WTC site, but is a few blocks away and, furthermore, it's only a block closer than a strip club. Bottom line? T&A in the neighborhood of "hallowed ground" is good; community center, performing arts theater, and childcare facility in the neighborhood of "hallowed ground" is bad. Why is it bad? Because it is a Muslim idea, and a mosque would be built as part of the development. But this doesn't make sense, since there has been a mosque at 20 Warren Street, only a few blocks away from the former WTC site, for decades. And, furthermore, Muslim worship has been occurring at the site since May of last year°.

The striking aspect of the idea that the Park 51 site is somehow violative of "hallowed ground" is that one wonders what, then, brings that sanctity, and how it is applied. How large should what some denounce as a "Muslim-free zone" in New York City actually be? That question remains unanswered; Governor Paterson has apparently suggested a land swap that would relocate the development somewhere else, but it remains unknown just where that would be.

The biggest problem opposition to the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" faces is of its own making. The New York Daily News reports:

One group brought a life-sized mock missile with a dummy terrorist draped over top holding a sign that read: "Obama, your middle-name is Hussain [sic], we understand. Bloomberg, what's your excuse."​

And that the opposition must misrepresent the proposed Park 51 development—

Rumors that the building will be turned into a 13-story "Mega Mosque" (a term most often used by conservative blogger Pamela Gellar, editor and publisher of Atlas Shrugs and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, said in this video -- at the 6:33 mark -- and in this article on CNN.com) have spread like wildfire across media airwaves. The "Mosque at Ground Zero" (an inaccurate name given to the project that is not at but near Ground Zero) used in headlines in The New York Post, Dallas News and The Boston Globe) has evoked strong emotions from people all over New York City. But what most people don't know is that the so-called "Mega Mosque" is actually a community center that New Yorkers hope to build, appropriately called "Park 51" for its location.

(Enayatulla)​

—certainly does nothing to help their credibility.

Indeed, the two arguments against the mosque that seem most apparent are anything but convincing: There is the argument that Park 51 is an insult because of 9/11, and then there is the argument that irrational people should be accommodated. Even Howard Dean promotes that latter:

... there are many Americans, about 65 or 70 percent, including many family members of the victims, who have very strong emotional resistance to building on this site. Some of them may have other feelings such as hate, fear, etc., but the vast majority of these people are not right-wing hate mongers.

My argument is simple. This center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens. That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are "justified" or not. No doubt the Republic will survive if this center is built on its current site or not. But I think this is a missed opportunity to try to have an open discussion about why this is a big deal, because it is a big deal to a lot of Americans who are not just right-wing politicians pushing the hate button again. I think those people need to be heard respectfully, whether they are right or whether they are wrong.​

These aren't convincing at all; that is, irrational hatred and emotionalism, to the one, and the need to legitimize that emotional irrationalism. If there is a rational, useful argument against the Park 51 center, I haven't yet heard it.

Lastly, on the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue, I would only note this is one of those situations that has become so perverse that it brings potential adversaries together. This has been happening more and more lately, and there are always conservatives near the heart of it. I remember one day listening to Pat Buchanan explain why he was unhappy with President Bush's course in the War Against Terror, and being astounded to find that I agreed with the conservative pundit; that doesn't happen often.

I am perhaps, as a result of practice, slightly less amazed that I find myself very near Rep. Ron Paul, of all people, in this debate:

The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we're supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems ....

.... Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don't want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be "sensitive" and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.​

____________________

Notes:

° represent all Americans — Then again, there was some statistical suggestions that as many as three-quarters of the nation believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, so it isn't a tremendous stretch to think that Bush's bogus argument was representative of American ignorance, paranoia, and deceit.

° stupid insistence that President Obama — President Obama has "African roots", but is he African? Indeed, he has "black roots", though some would doubt that he is actually black; this argument, however, is both desperate and deliberately apathetic toward history. Still, though, there was a time when the idea of acknowledging one's "Muslim [cultural] roots" would not be taken as prima facie evidence that he is Muslim.

° since May of last year — Doug Auer reported over the weekend, for The New York Post:

The Post reported earlier this month that the prayer services were being held despite the building not having a new city certificate of occupancy.

The religious gatherings have been taking place since the building was purchased in May 2009 by the real-estate firm SoHo Properties for $4.85 million. The building's certificate of occupancy expired in 1987 and was only for a retail store.

The Buildings Department has said that the owners are in compliance and that they received temporary permits for a place of assembly, allowing worship.​

Works Cited:

Brooks, Rich. "How Fox Betrayed Petraeus". The New York Times. August 22, 2010; page WK8. August 23, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html

Auer, Doug. "Faithful already filling the house". The New York Post. August 21, 2010. NYPost.com. August 23, 2010. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/...eady_filling_the_house_w1wuBCF97KVeJYYwxvA7pI

Badia, Erik, Kate Nocera and Simone Weichselbaum. "Anti-'Ground Zero mosque' protesters descend on downtown Park51 site". New York Daily News. August 22, 2010. NYDailyNews.com. August 23, 2010. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...otestors_descend_on_downtown_park51_site.html

Enayatulla, Sabrina. "Park 51: On Building a Mosque Near Ground Zero". BlogHer. July 16, 2010. BlogHer.com. August 23, 2010. http://www.blogher.com/park-51-if-you-build-it-they-will-learn

Dean, Howard. "Why I back a mosque compromise". Unclaimed Territory. August 19, 2010. Salon.com. August 23, 2010. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/08/19/dean_response/index.html

Paul, Ron. "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque!" Ron Paul Revolution. August 20, 2010. RonPaul.com. August 23, 2010. http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/r...iots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/

 

This again. This is a very bizarre avenue of discussion; like a tea party down the looking glass, but this time with roofies. Proponents of the mosque chase their tail on this one, round and round: but the Pentagon has a mosque, so why don't the anti-mosque racists/Tea-Partiers/bigots/islamophobes/warmongers denounce that too? The Ground Zero mosque is a mosque, but they're against that one. But the Pentation has a mosque, so.... It's fallacious from the start. The Pentagon space is a multi-faith centre. Explicitly. All faiths use it; there is a holy water font, prayer rugs and Bibles there. It's not a massive complex beside a national icon, dedicated to the same religion whose extremists attacked the centre. There's no question of its funding, largely because I wouldn't expect it to have any issues of funding; Uncle Sam is footing the bill.

There's a world of obvious, fundamental differences between these things. I don't want to throw down the "d-word", but: seriously, now. Is the discussion really obligated to go to these lengths to justify its preconclusions? We must invoke the warlike conservatives - and Mr. Obama and the Democrats - to distaff justify our pre-reasoning reasons?

 

The founders of what is being called a mosque call it a multicultural center for all faiths.

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/about-ci

"The programs at Cordoba Initiative (CI) are designed to cultivate multi-cultural and multi-faith understanding across minds and borders"

Other than the funding, location, and the pool and other non religious features of the Cordoba house there is no difference between it and the multifaith center at the Pentagon.

Yet in the case of ground zero you want to call it a mosque. In the case of the Pentagon you want to call it a "multifaith" facility.

So if the government paid for the ground zero Islamic cultural center, that would make you feel better?

 

This does not factor in the evils represented by the Islamic regimes and their declared agenda - hell bent on genocide of a 4000 year nation the last 60 years - with 100% genocidal demands. Hiding behind the Pretend Pals BS is the destruction of the Jewish homeland - the other side of the Islamic coin.

America targeted Sadaam because there were no Muslim freedom fighters against a freak who gassed the Kurds and threatened the Jews by the term Zionists - as if calling Jews as Zionists negates their history and all rights. Zionism refers to Mount Zion - a majestic word that gave more enlightenment to humanity than anything else humanity possessed today.

Dumping mosques in Jerusalem and other nations' most sacred sites - and swiping the term Palestinean - does not change history or make the Islamic demands anything else than Nazism. So which is the Jewish homeland - remember that one?

MOSES WAS THE FIRST ZIONIST.

 

One day, an American President will have a dream - and dump a huge mosque on Haj square.

But it won't be Mr. Obama - no he can't!

 

But is described almost everywhere since - including by AP - as a "mosque". It's possible that it'll end up multi-faith (the Pentagon centre actually is used by all faiths), which still leaves the question of funding - as you allude to below:

Sure, assuming it could be appropriately monitored: it would presumably make it implicitly beholden to a number of positive social protections. Prior vetting would be better, given what we already know about a number of Saudi-funded mosques. As I said earlier, there are a number of scenarios in which this would work. The status quo ante is not one of them.

(I confidently expect Bells to skip this post altogether, even with this note included. Wager?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

I find it frustrating, all these little shitty things people do to each other. Like they are too big of fucking pussies to REALLY go nutz on the people they hate that piss them off (hey let's give Hitler and his coterie some marks for that).

On the other hand they are too fucking stupid to just live and let live, and too stupid to actually put the hate on properly. Like everything else these days, it's done in weak mediocre style.

I'm just not interested anymore, someone tell me when I can get away with killing my neighbors and laughing on my way home (anarchy basically) then I'll pay attention. Now I don't care anymore, argue and play shitty little tit for tat. It doesn't matter in the long run.

 

While this is off-topic, I wanted to say this. While yes, the term "concentration camp," does usually reference the concentration camps in Germany, initially they were not specifically "death camps," and could be comparable to the "internment camps," in America.

 

Perhaps we can turn that frown upside down with the news that I have just started to build a really big oven.

Hope to try it out soon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course, I'm not really building anything. I don't have any need to bake 1000 loaves of bread all at once. Let's get serious.

 

How cute of you! Thanx for the clarification.

 

Nah, that was the old sciforums.
(Reminisce)
These days they are too pussy whipped to post such eloquent vileness.
Either that, or banned.
Remember Mountainhare. Now there was a racist of quality.