War on Terror

Mosque Move: A Victory for Jingoistic Rabble-Rousers

|

Ha'aretz reports that backers of the Corboda Initiative's mosque and Muslim community center plan to relocate the project in the face of widespread complaints that its proximity to the site of the World Trade Center is insensitive to the families of 9/11 victims (because the project's backers are Muslims, and so were the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center):

The decision follows a high-profile campaign against the project that included advertisements on New York buses showing images of the burning Twin Towers, an iconic landmark razed when al-Qaida terrorists flew packed passenger planes into them in 2001. The New York Republican party is also said to be planning a hostile television campaign.

Sources in New York said on Monday that Muslim religious and business leaders will announce plans to abandon the project in the next few days….

Several people familiar with the debate among New York's Islamic activists now claim that the leaders are convinced abandoning the site is preferable to unleashing a wave of bitterness towards Muslims.

They also hope the move will be seen as a show of sensitivity to families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and to the  American public generally.

Another factor in the apparent climbdown is a lack of funds to pay for construction of the center, estimated to cost a hundred million dollars. Backers hope moving it will lead to a wave of support, accompanied by cash donations.

If true, the reversal represents a victory for jingoistic rabble-rousers like Newt Gingrich, who last month insisted that "there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia" and recently has been deploying these carefully considered analogies against the project:

Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.

Update: The project's organizers say the Ha'aretz report is "completely false," adding, "We are committed to plans of building Park 51 [the Muslim cultural center's new name] to serve the community of Lower Manhattan."

Advertisement

NEXT: Do State Governments Have the Authority to Enforce ObamaCare's Insurance Regulations?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Na, na, na, na,
    Na, na, na na,
    Hey, hey, hey,
    Good bye

    1. False alarm. Everybody go home.

    2. The update says the report is false.

      In Reason’s leftist, atheistic Libertarian slant they are blinded by the glaring zoning inequity that is the true libertarian issue here.

      New York City is actively blocking the reconstruction of Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, that was destroyed on 9/11 by Islamist terrorists. At the same time, they are fast-tracking a Mosque with questionable ties to terrorist organizations. Imam of said Mosque is now on a US State Department funded trip around the world, raising money for his project.

      The Greek Orthodox rebuilding project already has all the finding and pledged materials it needs. Has for several years and still waiting for fairness in zoning to visit them.

      An interesting exercise in Google News searching shows this is being ignored by the MSM. Maybe Reason covered it, but I am not here enough to catch everything.

      1. You really think the City of New York, after all the trauma of 9/11, is showing favoritism to Muslims over Christians? That’s Truther-crazy, John.

        1. You have two buildings, both to be places of worship.

          The government is hindering the one that was around before 9/11 and helping the one that has yet to be built.

          Yes, I think Bloomberg in particular and his government lackeys in general are doing precisely that. How that is “Ttruther” worthy is beyond me and I do not follow them either. Let Ron Paul deal with them.

          1. sub-truther, then?

            bloomberg != port authority.

      2. First of all, leftist? Second of all, do you really think Reason readers would support zoning restrictions on any church?

      3. The Greek Orthodox rebuilding project already has all the finding and pledged materials it needs. Has for several years and still waiting for fairness in zoning to visit them.

        And you and your conservative friends stood idly by and allowed this travesty to occur…until it became a useful anecdote to bash the Moooooslims with.

        1. And you and your conservative friends stood idly by and allowed this travesty to occur…until it became a useful anecdote to bash the Moooooslims with.

          This is a zoning bias issue and some of us had to be made aware of it in order to voice this specific example.

          Far from anecdotal, this is a perfect head-to-head comparison. It would only be more perfect if they were literally next door to each other.

          Now that you are in record that you love zoning, why don’t you tell us how you would screw over one property owner over another in your leftist utopia.

          1. it’s not a perfect comparison, actually, for several reasons.

            but whatever.

            the same government that spends billions to kill muslims abroad is afraid of them at home, and thus is walking all over greek orthodox and grieving widows and…and…AND A BALD EAGLE WITH A SINGLE TEAR STREAMING DOWN ITS CHEEK!!!

            NEVER FORGET!!!!

            also, the burlington coat factory was kinda gross.

            1. I do contract work with them regularly across the U.S., so I feel pretty confident in stating all BCF sites would qualify as “kinda gross” at best.

            2. it’s not a perfect comparison, actually, for several reasons.

              1) Christianity is yucky, evil for judging us metro ass bandits.

              2) Islam is edgy and cool.

          2. SHUT THE FUCK UP SUKI

          3. SHUT THE FUCK UP SUKI

      4. Actually, it’s not the city of New York. It’s the Port Authority. It’s a federally created body, the state and city of New York have nothing to do with and no power over the Port Authority.

        1. Which by the way sucks. I’m no fan of NYC’s zoning laws.

          1. mo, you’re so naive. bloomberg runs the port authority under the pretend guise of a rich jewish man who controls the financial media, but is actually as secret muslim who uses his position as mayor to control access to downtown zoning laws so he can celebrate at the cordoba mosque, which translates as “endzone celebration dance” in islamish.

            more seriously, whomever suggested that conservatives get into semiotics deserves a fucking medal.

  2. Or maybe it is a victory for common sense and getting along. Good for them if they are going to build it somewhere else.

    1. Not sure if “common sense” has anything to do with opposition to this project…so that seems a stretch.

      1. Depends on the nature of the opposition.

        I’m not going to try to restrict their freedom, but I’m glad they changed their plans.

        1. I agree. Specific reasons for opposing the location of this community center Do matter.

          What was your common sense reason for opposing the location?

          1. If the relationship between Islam(I’m aware it’s only the fundies who want to kill us) and the West was much less heated than it is, then I don’t think it’d be such a problem.

            Currently, we’re fighting wars in several countries against fundamental Muslims whose catch phrase is “Death to the West” and they see the U.S. as the Western icon.

            If that relationship ever mellows out or gets resolved, then I don’t think there will be much of a backlash against building a mosque next to the WTC.

            As it is, I would expect Imam, or whoever’s making this decision, to think “Well, we could build it hear, but I can understand how it might make the wound a little salty, so let’s find somewhere else to build it.”

            1. we could build it hear

              Damn, I’m stupid.

              1. Spelling mistakes are a sign of intelligence, I believe.

                As for your common sense argument. Sounds fine in broad strokes, but the particulars matter. The current location of Masjid al-Farah mosque is just a few blocks away. Why would common sense say that the community center is more likely be like salt in the wound? Particularly given its stated mission. I can see the common sense reaction to the reaction, perhaps, working as you describe. But to predict the response? I am not so sure.

                1. Was the Masjid al-Farah mosque built after September 1, 2001?

                  1. Predates 9/11. Is in the same neighborhood. This project is partly to provide a larger facility for them. Common sense would say that they have already shown themselves to be good neighbors. Or at least it seems that way to me. Why they would assume their neighbors would change their opinion so drastically given their long standing in the neighborhood is beyond me. That is part of why I question the “common sense” arguments here.

                    1. Why they would assume their neighbors would change their opinion so drastically given their long standing in the neighborhood is beyond me.

                      NM, you can’t possibly be that dim. It is because they are BROWN, brown I say! Their neighbors have suddenly just noticed their brownness.

                    2. According to Wikipedia, the old mosque is located at 245 Park Avenue, and I assume the new mosque is located at 51 Park Avenue (this is my assumption from the project’s official name “Park51”). Google Maps shows two different locations for 51 Park Avenue (I don’t know why). The distance between them is either 3.2 miles or 3.8 miles depending on which of the locations for 51 Park Avenue you select.

                      I grew up in the heart of Chicago. Locations that are separated by 3 to 4 miles are most definitely not “in the same neighborhood” as each other. In Chicago, there would be at least four neighborhoods in a span of that distance. I suspect NY is the same, so the old and new mosques are not in “the same neighborhood”, unless my assumption about the address of the GZ mosque is incorrect.

                    3. Two city blocks (245 – 51) is 3.2 miles? No. You screwed up the Google Maps, obviously. 3 miles south of the original mosque would be in Brooklyn.

                    4. I was not clear in my “distance post”. The old mosque is located at 245 Park Ave according to Wiki, and according to Google maps the old mosque is either 3.2, or 3.8 miles from the new mosque. That means the old mosque was 3 to 4 miles from the WTC. The contention that the new and old mosques are “in the same neighborhood” is simply wrong.

                    5. Which mosque were you looking for? The Islamic Society of Mid-Manhattan is near the address you give, but there are two mosques closer to the proposed site. There is a mosque at 172 Allen St (the Assafa Islamic Center) which is less than a mile away from 51 Park Place which is the location of the new one.

                    6. Unless I am confused, Masjid al-Farah mosque at 225 West Broadway is about .5 miles from the new location at 51 Park Place.

                      http://maps.google.com/maps?f=…..9&z=16

            2. If that relationship ever mellows out or gets resolved, then I don’t think there will be much of a backlash against building a mosque next to the WTC.

              I suppose we should have waited for the relationship between whites and blacks to mellow out before we started integrating schools, too.

              Yes, I know I keep going back to that well, but the parallels are so damn strong it’s irresistable.

              1. Despite all the violence between races, nothing was comparable to 9/11 in its scope or number of casualties. Besides, a mosque is, by its very nature, a Muslim place of worship, as much as a church is Christian and a synagogue is Jewish.

            3. Exactly what you said.

              And I am Muslim (though I’ve never been to NYC, so no idea about the specifics of geography).

          2. NM, it appears the Imam’s common sense reason for relocating was, “we can’t afford it”. Maybe the Wahhabis pulled their funding support after they saw the ruckus the mosque caused?

            1. The Greek Orthodox Church in that neighborhood, that was destroyed on 9/11 has had funding for quite a while. Zoning blocks are stopping them. More accurately, favoritism for Islamists is blocking them and fast-tracking the Mosque.

              1. What part of “Port Authority != New York City” do you not understand?

      2. I’m sure you’d be as forgiving of building a US military monument on the side of the Iraqi Wedding Massacre no? If not would you be as willing to assign the opposition to things other than common sense?

  3. Another factor in the real reason for the apparent climbdown is a lack of funds to pay for construction of the center,

    Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that they can’t raise the money to build a Muslim cultural center marketed as being all about inclusion and outreach and stuff?

    1. No, you are not the only one. I read the first four paragraphs and thought, smart move…

      Then along comes the last paragraph and I threw my arms up in disgust. “We can’t afford this magnificent shrine, Imam, so let’s spin our decision to make it seem like we actually give a shit what the infidels think”.

      Sullum, I have to say you seem to have swallowed the whole load, bait and all. It’s OK though, you can get off your knees now.

    2. Backers hope moving it will lead to a wave of support, accompanied by cash donations.

      Hmm…what’s the Arabic for “wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one gets full the fastest”?

    3. I can’t raise a hundred million dollars to build stuff, either. Very odd.

      1. There isn’t various oil rich nations willing to pay hundreds of millions to build your stuff in their own best interests.

    4. While RC’s post is made irrelevant by the update, I’m amazed at the alacrity with which a partisan hack such as himself can switch from alleging that they must be getting money from sinister sources to making fun of them for not being able to raise money.

      1. Frankly, I would much rather build smaller religious centers in communities that actually need, you know, community centers. Not to rail against “teh rich”, but I am sure there are many places, in the very NYC metro area, that would benefit more from a Muslim (or nearly any other religion) community center. Neither of such need cost so much. So yes, while I can agree with their stated intentions, it does smack of empty publicity-seeking. And, like it or not, it IS insensitive.

  4. Or maybe it is a victory for common sense and getting along with each other. Good for them. I wish them good luck.

    1. Why the sudden change of heart? If they are really the bad actors you posited in your previous posts on this topic, why would the location of the place make a difference. I mean, if they are being financed by terrorists what does it matter if the are 3 blocks farther away (or whatever)? If the Corboda Initiative is really about what the opponents say, why does opposition to it stop just because they lost this battle? Does not the “war” go on?

      1. If they are willing to move the mosque maybe they are not bad actors. My assessment of them is based partially on their desire to build it there. If they have had a change of heart, perhaps so should I.

        Sorry, I am not fitting into your stereotype.

        1. Still seems like pretty thin gruel in both directions. No real reason to assume they were doing what you assumed they were doing and no real reason to assume that they aren’t. How does moving the community center convince you of their good intentions? What about the location convinced you about their bad intentions?

          1. “How does moving the community center convince you of their good intentions?”

            Because they no longer have the desire to put it somewhere that gives the finger to the country. That was their bad intentions. What the fuck are the bad intentions about running a gym?

            1. The location was the bad intention?
              You REALLY believe that?

              1. I don’t believe they had any ill intentions. However, the location was as bad PR as can be. How would you see a Mexican-American center at the location of the Battle of Alamo? A Confederate veteran center at the location of Lincoln’s murder? They need not have ill intentions to be bad PR. They surely underestimated it, and I’ll be glad if they move it.

                1. You must have never been to San Antonio. Downtown around the Alamo is Mexican everything.

                  1. And do they celebrate their side of the battle? I don’t think the Japanese celebrate their side of the battle, though they still celebrate their own casualties and many deny at least some of their own atrocities.
                    Mexican (and Texas, from Spain) independence is coming soon, by the way, and it’s the 200. I wonder if they will be as insensitive as celebrating it in Maricopa county.

          2. ” No real reason to assume they were doing what you assumed”

            Yeah no reason a all. It just pissed off 3/4s of the country because.

            Why don’t you just save time and write GO TEAM BLUE!!!

            1. GO TEAM BLUE!!

              Talk about strange assumptions.
              Not a Democrat.

              1. More importantly…how is this a TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE issue at all?

                I don’t see any reason to assume that it breaks down along DEM/REP lines.

      2. Rest assured that wherever they try to build it people will still try to stop it.

        It’s happening all over the country.

    2. No. It was a victory for assholes and jingoistic rabble rousers.

      1. Wait, I’m conflicted. I’m an asshole, and I’d like to celebrate the victories of my people. However, I’m not a jingoistic rabble rouser. Is it more a victory for assholes, or for jingoistic rabble rousers? The answer will determine my drinking plans this evening.

        1. Just use my drinking strategy. If you lose, drink. If you win, drink.

      2. No. It was a victory for assholes and jingoistic rabble rousers.

        No more assholish or jingoistic than the religious rabble who wanted to build it in the first place.

  5. I’d like to propose a system of stopping multiple posts on the same subject within minutes of each other. All return keys should be wired to some sort of electrical charge. If they try to submit an article with similar key words and text to another article recently posted they receive a shock. This will deter multiple articles on the same thing. If their article is important they will be willing to endure this shock.

    I think we can make this work.

    1. rubber gloves

      1. A special key, equipped with spring-loaded sharp steel points, will pierce not only any rubber gloves, but also the skin, to deliver the aforementioned electric shock.

        We can called it the “TaseKey”.

      2. A special key, equipped with spring-loaded sharp steel points, will pierce not only any rubber gloves, but also the skin, to deliver the aforementioned electric shock.

        We can called it the “TaseKey”.

        1. And I apparently need one, to keep from hitting “submit” twice.

          1. God forbid the 100% free content of this site seem redundant to you, particularly when the entries in question pertain to the number one news story of the day (and one particularly rife with libertarian concerns).

  6. “”We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.””

    But Japanese electronic devices on the other hand…

    1. “”We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.””

      This is one of the analogies I often see, but I don’t agree. If the Japanese proposed such a memorial today, ~70 years after the event, I don’t think it would get much resistance.

      1. Indeed. I actually like the idea. The dead Japanese were victims of their leader’s evil intent just as surely as the Americans. No?

        1. Yes, but I don’t think a shrine that honored only, or primarily, the dead Japanese attackers would go over so well. I was thinking along the lines of, “it was a stupid attack that killed thousands, including some of our own, and never should have happened. We apologize.”

          1. Details always matter, but I don’t see the Japanese building a shrine to their victory at Pearl Harbor at this point in history. I mean Honolulu and Hiroshima are sister cities after all. Something along the lines of a co-sponsored memorial to the fallen from both sides seems more likely/appropriate. As you said.

          2. And if the Cordobas were building a shrine to the 9/11 hijackers, this analogy would be sensible.

            A closer analogy for Pearl Harbor would be building a Shinto Temple near the site of the Pearl Harbor attack, which I seriously doubt anyone would oppose.

            1. Already is one.

            2. Did they build it in 1949? Would you have agreed in 1949? As wayne said, the timing does matter. Even if 1949 is a good date, the war was won in 1945. The fighting in Afg. continues… (whether there is the same level of justifiability for the war is another issue)

              1. I would have agreed in 1949.

                Considering Americans in 1949 were generally OK with racial segregation and internment camps for Japanese, their opinions don’t matter to us in the present day.

        2. No. It is not like their leaders came for Mars and took over the country. At some level you are responsible for your leaders. And their leaders were wildly popular at the time of Pearl Harbor.

          Was Eichman a victim of Hitler?

          1. At some level, yes. At other levels, no.

      2. “””If the Japanese proposed such a memorial today, ~70 years after the event, I don’t think it would get much resistance.”””

        Tough call I think. Would they accept an American memorial in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Probably not. But a McDonalds, that’s different.

        1. Good point. I think a memorial at one of the A-bomb sites could be constructed that would survive most objections, though.

    2. There is a Shinto shrine next to Pearl Harbor.

      1. “Next to” = five miles away, right? Five miles in Hawaii is kind of a lot.

    3. Quick, somebody tell Newt about Aiea.

    4. The Japanese already own half of Hawaii and are a major force on the island.

  7. I’d like to propose a system of stopping multiple posts on the same subject within minutes of each other. All return keys should be wired to some sort of electrical charge. If they try to submit an article with similar key words and text to another article recently posted they receive a shock. This will deter multiple articles on the same thing. If their article is important they will be willing to endure this shock.

    I think we can make this work.

    1. Sorry, hmm, I couldn’t resist.

      1. I’m talking about the authors or contributors to reason, posts was supposed to be articles.

        You have to be fluent in retard to read my posts. Sorry.

  8. I think its a real shame. They come here, they blow our buildings up, now they want a place to bow to thier cow or whatever it is they bow to on the same spot? No way dude.

    Lou
    http://www.web-privacy.es.tc

    1. this is easily in my top-ten bot posts, it’s so insensitive and has just the right amount of spelling error. Just NICE!

      1. It’s even beter than mine.

        1. IMPOSTOR! You didn’t mention WEED.

      2. True. The anon-bot gathers strength day by day.

    2. Agreed. This is fucking brilliant.

      1. In fact, I will say that, while I am not generally threatened by technology, when anon-bot wins a thread (as he so clearly has in this case) it raises fears that humanity’s days are numbered.

    3. The robot-on-furby porn post was better.

  9. Real reason: no property insurance company would touch them.

    1. If so the free market works again.

      1. Sweet. But as Bill O’Reily said, no union crew would show up to build it.

      2. If they have enough money to build, isn’t it a victory for the free market?

      3. So if I was able to frighten your insurer by issuing lots of threats of violence, and they pulled your insurance as a result and destroyed your business, that would be a victory for the free market too?

        1. Insurers are obligated to consider all risks when they issue insurance. They arrive at a market based decision. Sounds like a free market to me.

          1. So your answer is “yes”.

            Good to know. I hope that happens to you some day.

            1. If I ever decide to build a KKK memorial in Selma, or construct a baptist church allied with the morons who march around the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq chanting, “God wants you dead, and you are going to hell”, then I expect it will happen to me.

              1. construct a baptist church allied with the morons who march around the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq

                Based on your position in this dispute, it is not necessary for you to align yourself with Phelps. I can simply declare you aligned with Phelps and act accordingly.

                If all Muslims are the same, then all Baptists are the same, too. Actually, that’s too limiting; all Protestants are the same. And because Phelps is an asshole, if you were to try to start a church somewhere, and I issued lots of anonymous threats of violence and arson and no insurer would touch you, you would have no grounds to complain and would have to consider it a victory for the free market.

                1. Fluffy, based on your position in this dispute, I can declare you an insensitive dimwit unable to recognize the symbolic disrespect represented by construction of a mosque at the center of radical Islam’s crowning terrorist achievement in the USA.

                  So, I guess we are even.

                2. Well all men ARE created equal.

                3. Hey, get with the program–if all Muslims are the same, then all Christians are the same.

                  Do you need everything spelled out for you.

                  And go ahead, be my guest, equate the two–hell, lets say all jews are the same while we’re at it, okay?

              2. should have read: or construct a baptist church next to Arlington National Cemetery that is allied with the morons

                It was a scathing retort in my mind, but it did not quite make it to my fingers.

          2. Threats are not part of a free market, you goddamn idiot. Seriously!

        2. The market doesn’t owe you shit Fluffy. If people don’t want to insure the place or help build it that is the way it goes. Freedom means freedom, even if it goes against your beloved Blue State culture.

          1. In Fluffy’s example, it was THREATS ( ie, coercion) that caused the insurers to back out. That’s not an example of the free market in action.

            Did you consider Comedy Central pulling the Mohammed episode of South Park to be “the free market in action”? How about all the magazines that refused to run pictures of Mohammed, was that the free market too?

            1. He ain’t gonna answer.

            2. And how can a moderate Muslim request the tolerance from non-extremist media not to insult their beliefs when they are not willing not to respect those who sincerely don’t like their beliefs?

              I’d rather mocking Muhammad be kept to a minimum, out of civility, but I cannot realistically expect it when there is the equally uncivil building of a mosque at such sensitive place.

              1. Like most octopi, you do like the red herrings.

                1. No, I just understand those who say it is insensitive.

                  I don’t mean they are right. It doesn’t make them any less offended that they aren’t right. Thus, it is a gratuitous display of insensitivity.

        3. You’ve just described the jihadi PR model.

  10. I don’t see this as a victory for Gingrich et al. This would have been a great issue come election time – lots of sound and fury, little substance. It would have provided a great distraction from the fact that the Republican party has no more intention to do anything about spending than the Democrats.

  11. Does anyone actually care about this, like, at all? I mean really. There are much more important things going on, yet practically every other post on Hit n Run’s front page is about this.

    1. Cordoba Mosque. It’s the new Sarah Palin.

      1. Are you changing your handle to Enough About Mosques?

        1. Who you callin’ racist?

          1. My bad. Maybe you should change to Enough About Racist.

            1. Who you callin’ a mosque?

      2. No, it’s the new Terri Schiavo.

  12. Victory rescinded, apparently-

    From the Park51 twitter- “There is no truth to the Haaretz story. It is wholly incorrect. We will be publishing a press release regarding this shortly.”

    1. It’s almost as though no one read this …

  13. What’s amazing to me is that we have a group of people who literally believe that anything near the site of a plane wreck is holy. We’ve made a religion out of a goddamn terrorist attack.

    1. We’ve made a religion out of a goddamn terrorist religious attack.

      1. Al Qaeda: We attacked on 9/11 because of the U.S. presence and actions in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East in general, and for it’s support of Israel.

        Americans like EAP: Nuh-uh! You did it because you’re Muslim! Muslimism made you do it! You hate freedom!

        Al Qaeda: We have just explained why we attacked you.

        Americans like EAP: Hey, we’ll tell you why you attacked, because we know all about this stuff. That’s why people like us, who ignore what you say and decide for ourselves what your motives are, responded in such thoughtful, efficient, constructive ways to your attack on Freedom!

        1. “Al Qaeda: We attacked on 9/11 because of the U.S. presence and actions in Saudi Arabia”

          Right. Because the words of al Quada are above reproach and religion had absolutly nothing to do with it on their part. It was all just a military thing.

          1. They said it was about religion. They said is was about the presence of US troops in the Holy Land. They did not hide their motives. They, in fact, spend a lot of time talking about why they do what they do. It is a consistent message across the decades and it is how they franchise their movement.

        2. i guess you haven’t read bin laden’s letter to americans.

          “The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.” he protests that we allow homosexuality, drugs, gambling, “usury” etc etc.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

        3. Al Qaeda: We attacked on 9/11 because of the U.S. presence and actions in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East in general, and for it’s support of Israel.

          They hate our correct use of apostrophes, too? This is an outrage up with which we Americans will not put! This Eagle does not subordinate the dictates of grammar to the vagaries of the moment or the pressing dictates of limited time, homey!

          1. “Al Qaeda: We attacked on 9/11 because of the U.S. presence and actions in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East in general, and for it’s support of Israel.”

            and yet, what they actually expect us to do is to convert to islam. check it out. it doesn’t make sense but it’s there.

    2. I count 4 strip clubs within blocks of the holy site. So much for consistency amongst conservatives.

      1. If 19 strippers flew planes into buildings and killed thousands of people as part of a fanatical crusade to ban pasties, you might have a point.

        1. How many Sufi’s were part of the 9/11 attacks?

          1. I wonder if he knows what sect the 19 hijackers belonged to.

            1. Hmmm, he hasn’t responded. He’s probably googling it right now.

              1. This reminds me that several of the hijackers visited strip clubs before the attacks. Is there a link between strippers and terrorism that needs to be investigated?

                1. Let’s call teh NSF and see if we can get some grant money for field research.

                2. Let me be the first to volunteer for the undercover op.

  14. I hope that it is true that the proposed center will be relocated because that should help further the aim of fostering understanding and goodwill. I applaud all those, including President Obama, who recognized and spoke up for religious freedom and the right of this group to build wherever local laws allow.

    As for Gingrich and his like, perhaps people will recognize their hate speech for the base-baiting garbage that it is.

  15. the burning Twin Towers, an iconic landmark razed when al-Qaida terrorists flew packed passenger planes into them in 2001.

    That this description had to be typed makes me feel very old.

    1. Oh, the planes weren’t *that* packed. Those early first flights were pretty light that day.

  16. So much for sensitivity. The lack of sensitivity for the feelings of millions of American muslims who resent being blamed for/lumped in with/or guilt associated with asshole terrorists, that is.

    1. Mormons are uniformly evil, because some of them gave money to help pass Prop 8.

      Muslims are just misunderstood, because the vocal minority who murder people give the rest a bad name.

      Errybody got that?

      1. Mormons are uniformly evil because they are a cult that wants to push its views on the rest of America.

    2. Sensitivity is vastly overrated.

      1. And what’s all this crap I hear about tolerance?

    3. Poor, poor muslims. They have done so much to be loved and all they get is distrust. It is a cruel world.

      1. So you’re a collectivist?

        1. No, I tend my own garden. You?

          1. But you believe in collective guilt. I know of a man selling condos in Pyongyang if you’re interested.

            1. No, I don’t believe in collectivist guilt, but I am smart enough to realize that some things are inappropriate and likely to incite resentment, distrust and violence:
              1. a noose outside NAACP’s HQ.
              2. a crystal cathedral in Baghdad.
              3. a mosque at ground zero.

              It has nothing to do with guilt, it has to do with simple manners. Some people have no manners, and they are treated accordingly.

              1. Members of the KKK are white CHRISTIANS. Are you opposed to a protestant church outside the NAACP’s HQ? If you aren’t, according to your logic, you have no manners.

                1. Here’s where your analogy breaks down…the fact that KKK members are Christians is irrelevant to their racist beliefs (in fact I would guess the majority of modern day skinheads/KKK do not even claim to be Christian)….whereas the Islamic belief system is literally what drives these people to slaughter innocents.

                  1. How about building a Christian Identity church, then?

                  2. “…whereas the Islamic belief system is literally what drives these people to slaughter innocents.”

                    Wrong. The Sunni/Wahhabi belief system is what drove people to slaughter the innocent (many of whom were muslim by the way). Sufis, who share about as much in common with Sunnis as Protestants do with Catholics, are the ones who want to build the mosque.

              2. Thank you!

    4. Muslims are like that kid on the playground who gets really bent out of shape when people tease him. Obviously, he is going to keep getting picked on until he learns to quit taking things so seriously.

      1. Considering that the mosque opponents were complaining about Muslim insensitivity…you need to look in the mirror, bub.

      2. …which is just why, maybe, just maybe, it would be useful to learn why we/you/they are teased so much. If some reasons might be unfair (and even racist or ethnocentrist in this case) others might have a point.

        1. Which side is crying about insensitivity again? It’s not the mosque proponents.

    5. As opposed to the millions of Americans branded as imperialists. It goes both ways you know. How has Islam showed any sensitivity to the site of 9/11? They can barely even say it was a bad thing without the obligatory “but America asked for it” on the end.

  17. Ha’aretz reports

    And Ha’aretz is a professional news organization, so they’re wrong. This made-up story has been floating for days.

    But still, let the hate flow through you and such.

  18. because the project’s backers are Muslims, and so were the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center

    Translation: Jacob Sullum is a disingenuous piece of shit.

    1. Why didn’t anyone sane* care 9 months ago when it was on such obscure outlets such as Fox News and the New York Times, but people suddenly cared in May when Gellar and her band of morons flipped their wigs?

      * Pam Geller is not sane.

      1. Indeed. I wouldn’t expect an answer from these guys, though.

      2. Why didn’t anyone care when they didn’t know about it? Why were they so silent before it became a big news item and they found out about it?

        And you call Pam Geller insane?

    2. How is he being disingenuous? Every last post of yours certainly leads one to believe that’s EXACTLY YOUR REASONING.

      1. The 9/11 hijackers felt that what they were doing was inseparable with their identity as Muslims. To them, and to many other Muslims around the world, it was a holy act.

        To imply otherwise is obviously disingenuous.

        1. Are you a fucking idiot?

          Sullum wrote that people are opposed to the mosque because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims and because the people who want to build the mosque are Muslims.

          You just posted an admission that this is exactly why you are opposed to the mosque.

          Since that is exactly why you are opposed to the mosque, it cannot be disingenuous for Sullum to say that is why you are opposed to the mosque.

          1. I’ve seen several instances of them slipping the last couple of days with some of these guys. They must be letting their guard down.

  19. “”I hope that it is true that the proposed center will be relocated because that should help further the aim of fostering understanding and goodwill.””

    I’m not sure if giving in to bullies that want to usurp you’re legal activity ever promotes understanding and goodwill. That isn’t limited to the cultural center.

    1. I think it works more often than rubbing things in people’s faces despite their feelings ever promotes understanding and goodwill.

      1. If you feel that anything’s being rubbed into your face by this, grow the fuck up.

    2. I hope you’re finding that my insistence on pointing out your your/you’re confusion promotes understanding and goodwill.

      1. “”I hope you’re finding that my insistence on pointing out your your/you’re confusion promotes understanding and goodwill.””

        lol. Certainly understanding, goodwill, maybe not so much.

      2. Ok, goodwill too.

    3. Disagreement is now “bullying” and “usurpation?”

      The people wanting to build the mosque have the right to do so. The people who want to speak against that choice have the right to do so. The people wanting to build the mosque can move forward or change their plans. Those currently opposed can adjust accordingly. And so on.

      I guess I’m missing the bullying and usurpation. Now, if the city colluded to have the area ruled as blighted and took the property for a small fraction of its market value, I could agree with the use of those words. But that never happens in sanctimonious, holier than thou Bloomberg’s city.

      1. I counted people using hate as a means to force you to change your mind as bullying. My bad.

        1. Is there any evidence of hate other than your own mind?
          Let’s play that game, 19 Islamic hijackers crash planes into the twin towers and you are surprised when people object to them building a victory mosque on the site?

          1. How exactly are 19 dead men raising funds for and building a mosque?

            Oh, wait, you mean THEM, them.

          2. I don’t know how many times you have to be told this, but…

            IT’S NOT ON THE SITE!

      2. “”Now, if the city colluded to have the area ruled as blighted and took the property for a small fraction of its market value, I could agree with the use of those words.””

        I wonder if the city used that method to prevent them from building would be considered a good thing by opponents?

        1. Unlikely, for the most part. It appears that most of the opponents are well on board with the fact that the legal right to build the mosque is essentially unassailable. I’m sure some ends-justify-the-means people would be happy about it but there are plenty of those of all sides of most issues.

          If people are manifesting their hate with implicit or explicit threats of violence — I think few are — I’ll agree with “bullying.” If they’re just saying hateful things, not so much.

          1. “”If people are manifesting their hate with implicit or explicit threats of violence — I think few are — I’ll agree with “bullying.” If they’re just saying hateful things, not so much.””

            Saying hateful things until you get your way is a form of bullying. It’s not just the saying of hateful things. It’s the not letting up until one gets there way that makes it bullying. Many people protesting would not fit the definition I’m using. But some do.

            I support the right to disagree, and their right to protest. But some people just seem to come across like there is more to this than just disagreement and hateful speech. They are motivated to get their ends.

            1. Shorter TrickyVic:

              “No Free Speech For Racists!”

            2. Recently there was a Supreme Court case in which a Christian student organization was forced, by school rules, to allow people to join the organization who did not support the ideals and aims of the organization.

              There was some nobility to the rules, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, inclusivity.

              But those rules could be used to silence this particular organization.

              By allowing opponents of the group to join en masse, the people who had founded the group could have it taken away–or worse, aimed in directions antithetical to their initial purpose in founding the group so that their creation would be used as a vehicle against the people who’d started it.

              Thus the noble rules were used to silence and oppress.

              Islam routinely bullies and uses threats of, along with actual extralegal violence, to get their way. Often times, when called upon it, our own ‘noble rules’ are used as a weapon against us. Frequently, to avoid the bullying and/or violence or the perverting of our ideals, we capitulate. And our capitulation only guarantees that this will continue.

              We are not the bullies in this, we are the victims, finally starting to push back

  20. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.

    Ummm, they have. It’s called “most of Honolulu.”

  21. If true, the reversal represents a victory for jingoistic rabble-rousers like Newt Gingrich

    That’s painting the entire group with a very broad brush. If you read all the arguments made by opponents of the mosque, you’ll see that they run the gambit. On one end there are jingoists that I would not want to go near. On the other end, there are historic preservationists that I can respectfully disagree with. The debate is not black and white.

    1. Name one prominent opponent of the downtown mosque calling out the jingoistic rabble-rousers that oppose the Sheboygan, Staten Island, Tennessee and Temecula mosques? If it walks, quacks, flies and swims like a duck, chances are it’s a duck.

      1. Um, I prefer to see things with my own eyes. I watched videos of the actual comments people made at the preservation committee meeting to decide on landmark status. Those comments ran the gambit like I said. Frankly, I don’t follow the latest words of celebrity politicians with held breath. I’m too busy combing through actual committee meetings and databases of legislation. If you’re watching this debate the way tabloid junkies watch Hollywood drama, then that explains why you are so uniformed about what happened.

        1. Have your eyes seen that Burlington Coat Factory? There wasn’t anything historic about it. It’s just a non-descript building that no one would ordinarily care about were it not for the situation surrounding it.

          1. Yes, I saw pictures of it. The architectural details on it are much nicer than what you find on most of the homes in my neighborhood. The Burlington Coat Factory building is about 150 years old and it was built by an architect who’s other buildings got landmark status by New York City. The building also got extra historical significance when part of one plane that hit the WTC landed in it. I’m not inclined to give land mark status to any building, but I’m not surprised to hear other New Yorkers argue for land mark status on architectural grounds. You would get a fight from the New York City historic preservationists if you tried to tear up train tracks that were 150 years old. That’s just the way they are in New York City.

          2. Does the “situation surrounding the Burlington Coat Factory” include the piece of 9/11 plane wreckage that closed down the building for good?

            1. By situation I meant the mosque. If it were a luxury apartment building, no one would give two shits except for the people that always bitch about new luxury apartment buildings. I don’t doubt there’s a minority that actually wanted to keep the building on historic grounds, because you’re right there are quite a few NYers like that. But I also don’t doubt that there’s a few using that as a cover.

          3. You can look at the Greek columns and all here.

    2. That’s painting the entire group with a very broad brush.

      I find this very ironic. Even those who see it simply as a matter of bad taste are saying that the association between the attacks and the entire religion is strong enough that it is an affront to taste to have a community center near the site of the attacks.

      Talk about your broad brush.

      1. Not at all, Nue Mejican. I watched the video of the comments made at the committee meeting to decide on landmark status. Some of the people who wanted land mark status spoke only about the architectural merits of the Burlington building. You are yet another person who finds it inconceivable that someone can disagree with you and still not be a bigot.

        1. jtuf…no.

          I commented on a particular argument against the project. Those who wanted to preserve the architectural nature of the neighborhood did not oppose the project because they felt that it was in bad taste to have a mosque near ground zero.

          1. Oh. Thanks for clarifying. Now you’re back on my good list, Neu Mejican.

  22. The mouthbreathers win one.

    Fuck. America, you embarrass me.

    1. mutual, i’m sure

  23. If true, I think we need to start talking about a Curse of the Obama to go with the Curse of the Gambino.

    Anything that sniveling little weasel gets behind turns to shit.

  24. Imagine a USA where its educated elites actually sympathized with the average American’s sensibilities. Crazy, huh?

    1. How could you show your education and eliteness if you agreed with the common man?

    2. WTF are you talking about?

      1. I think he’s complaining that the elite don’t share his religious bigotry.

  25. I think the Muslims should use the same rhetoric the southern whites use for the Confederate flag:

    It’s heritage, not hate !!!

    1. That’s actually a pretty good analogy — about the only opposition someone could throw up is statute of limitations (since 9/11 was a decade ago, and slavery was several generations ago).

  26. So, apparently putting pictures of people’s loved ones actually being murdered on the sides of buses is OK, but sharing a religion with the murderers and wanting to build a religious center on available real estate in a densely populated urban area is beyond the pale? Good to see people have their priorities sorted out.

  27. “there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia”

    Possibly the stupidest thing Gingrich has ever said (publicly).

    1. I cringe at the thought I once called myself a conservative.

      1. I cringe when I remember respecting Newt’s intellect once upon a time. He’s little more than a shameless, pandering demagoguer.

        1. Should we expect Newt to understand the difference between a country with freedom of religion in its Constution and a country without it?

          1. You would think so. That’s why his demagoguery is so disgusting.

            1. Agreed. Newt isn’t stupid.

          2. But there is something to be said for exporting some religious tolerance as opposed to importing some religious intolerance.

            1. Yes, exporting pluralistic democracy has worked GREAT!

              1. Exactly–look at Germany and Japan.

                Helps to do your exporting AFTER the war is over.

      2. Newt cringes at the thought he was once a conservative.

    2. Possibly the stupidest thing Gingrich has ever said (publicly).

      Amplified by the number of times he repeated it…

  28. the reversal represents a victory for jingoistic rabble-rousers like Newt Gingrich

    I disagree. This move, as if we needed any more evidence, makes the Muslims seem like the thoughtful party. Win for them. Egg on the faces of the scum-sucking demagogues who wanted to make this an election-year issue.

    1. “”Egg on the faces of the scum-sucking demagogues who wanted to make this an election-year issue.””

      Or it could be a victory dance they can rally their team behind. That way it keeps their minds of the “fix the economy dance” which no one is attending.

      1. What victory? There’s nothing to rile up the GOP base with anymore. Well, they still have mexicans and gays.

      2. Agree. What looks to us like xenophobic demagoguery looks to them like a noble blow in the War on Terrer. The WoT itself serves as a distraction from real issues.

        1. The art of demagoguery means you can never actually win. If you aren’t scaring people into voting for you, you aren’t winning.

          1. Thank heavens the Democrats and other leftists never demagogue anything or play to fears, eh?

            1. Only in the most hesitating, limp manner. I suppose that makes them equal?

              1. You’ve got a little selection bias going there, Tony. Do you not recall all of the “children will starve in the streets” attacks every time Republicans tried to do so much as slow the growth of some program? Remember all the racists that were supposedly burning black churches? Remember the accusations that “Bush knew” about 9/11 from various Dem officials? Etc., etc.

                1. PapayaSF it doesn’t matter whether these things are coming from the fringes or whether they’re the main party position?

    2. It’s one of those rare instances when the “progressives” are on the right side of things, and the “conservatives” remind all of us of their backward, hypocritical, bigoted religious philosophy.

      1. Though you’ll notice that none of the progressives deigned to make the private property argument: such barbarism is beneath them.

        Freedom of religion is great, but freedom to do what one wishes with one’s property must be swept under the rug

        1. Yup. Even when they’re right they manage to screw it up.

    3. Gee, we can’t afford to build our shrine to the defeat of the infidels.

  29. And why the fuck did no one say a peep about the mosque opened in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11? That’s the center of our fucking war machine! Oh yeah, this is the politics of xenophobia. Consistency and reason are not part of this.

    1. And why the fuck did no one say a peep about the mosque opened in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11?

      Because it was part of the same PC spin machine that allowed the Jihadist psychiatrist to murder 13 innocent people at Ft. Hood? Just a guess on my part.

  30. Common sense?

    If they will not disclose their donors, I am not going to blame people for thinking that their community center is not what they claim it is. The Saudis spend billions of dollars funding radical Mosques all over the world. When a Muslim organization refuses to say where it is getting its funding, it is not unreasonable to think that it is getting its funding from some pretty unsavory sources.

    1.4 Billion Muslims on the planet. What are the actual odds of a Muslim donor being an unsavory source? Almost 20 million Muslims in Saudi Arabia. What are the odds of a particular Saudi funding source being a terrorist?

    1. NM, come on, you can do better than that. The proposed mosque is at ground zero, that has to narrow the odds a bit.

      Saudi Wahhabis have a history of funding terrorism, both the blood-work and the symbolic work. What are the odds of them being behind the GZ mosque? Pretty good is my guess.

      1. It is mainly near the Masjid al-Farah mosque…you know. Near the mosque that it would be replacing. A Sufi Imam from that mosque is behind building the proposed project. That seems a bigger factor in predicting who would be funding it.

        No?

        1. Before today I had never heard of the Masjid al-Farah mosque. Interesting way to phrase things, “…mainly near the Masjid…”, as if its proximity to GZ is an astonishing surprise to the Imam.

          Imam to his building committee: It has come to my attention that our proposed building site is only two blocks from the body-filled crater of the WTC. How did this happen? What shall we do?
          Building committee: Proceed with our plans, symbolism means nothing.

          As to predicting whether Sufis are behind the funding of the mosque, I would only predict that they are the only source of funding if they are as anesthetized to the symbolic implications of this mosque as Fluffy, and you, appear to be.

          1. “Mainly” as in their plans are mainly about staying in the same general area as their members live in the neighborhood? No?

            As for the Sufi thing…the “symbolism” of the location only matters if you use the broad brush and paint all Muslims with the “part of the group that attacked” brush rather than “part of the group that was attacked” brush.

        2. Ah, it’s a Sufi mosque–a sect that many Muslims consider a heresy. Hmmm. I guess the financial district in Manhattan is a world center of Sufism? I mean it must be, seeing as how they need a 13 story mosque and community center. After all, Sufis are probably crowding all the other mosques in the city.

          And since they’re a heretical sect, I’m sure it’s uncomfortable for them to go to those other mosques.

          And Timon loves them Sufis, doncha, Timon? How many Sufis are in Manhattan(we’ll just use Manhattan, the same way you all exclude the rest of NYC when you want to show how the mosque has such high local support)?

          1. You are quite fond of straw, aren’t you?

            1. Timon, I just don’t see the need, y’know?

      2. Saudi Wahhabis also hate Sufis. The mosque is a Sufi mosque. Wahhabis and Sufis have as much in common as Mormons and Catholics.

        1. This. Sufis are considered heretics to Wahhabists, and a number of Shi’ite sects, IIRC.

          1. Like most Americans understand the difference. Of course, I would also expect someone who always lived in a Muslim-majority country wouldn’t be able to tell apart a Mormon from a Catholic easily.

            1. But the whiners aren’t even listening to that. It’s all “INSENSITIVE!!!!!!!” and nothing else. Not being able to tell isn’t in and of itself a problem. The unwillingness to learn about these differences only perpetuates the situation.

    2. I don’t know what are the odds? What are the odds of a Catholic Irish American center being built in 1985 that won’t say where its funding came from being funded by the IRA?

      Seriously, you are so stuck on stupid on this its amazing. You in fluffy are so fucking blue state stick it to the bubbas, the motherfuckers could be blowing themselves up on 5th Avenue and you would be on here claiming nothing happened.

    3. And if America is so racist and horrible as you and fluffy maintain, maybe it is a bad idea to encourage that by building it here. That is the victory for common sense. Maybe they are not as into playing red team versus blue team as you guys are.

      1. Who said America is racist and horrible? Certainly not me. I have not met a single person who felt that there was anything nefarious about the proposal.

        I mean polls indicate that most Americans greeted this thing with a giant “meh.” (20% or so following the story). THAT sounds like common sense to me.

        1. Those are not the polls I am reading. And further if what you are saying is true, then why is every Dem politician in the country running for cover saying how bad of an idea it is?

          What polls are you reading Ms Kael?

          1. Rasmussen put the number of people following the story at around 20%.

            1. Of those following the story, how many approve of building the mosque?

              1. The claim was that it was pissing off 3/4ths of the country.

                Pissing off 3/4ths of those that care enough to form an opinion is much different.

                1. Not really, NM. A poll that samples 20% of a population is likely to be pretty predictive of the population.

                  1. A response rate is not a sample.

                  2. That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that a sample of the population indicates that 20% of that sample is following the story. That’s like twice removed from what you’re saying.

                    1. Glad you got that clarified. The number of people following the story is important when you are going to ask about an issue like this. If 80% of the responses are from people who haven’t been following and don’t know the details, then the reliability of their responses is suspect, not to mention the validity. They may change their response a soon as they learn more…or they may be basing their opinion on a partial, or incorrect understanding of the situation.

    4. What are the odds of a particular Saudi funding source being a terrorist?

      I’ll have to take some time to think about that, infidel.

  31. So how many people are going to simultaneously gloat over the project’s potential bankruptcy and insist that it’s being funded by PURE EVIL (which apparently uses invisible money)?

  32. By the way, like I predicted, none of the folks screaming about bigotry and land rights showed up to comment at the recent post about eminent domain abuse in Alabama. I support the right of the land owners to build the Islamic center at Ground Zero. I’m just rather repulsed by the guys who are using the debate as an opportunity to make stereotypes about the Islamic center’s opponents so that they can thump their chests in the name of principles that they forget about the very next day.

  33. This is almost enough to make me think that things will be worse when the GOP gains power in the midterms / 2012 and it lends a whole lot of credence to the idea that they are the Evangelical War Party.

  34. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.

    They don’t? If they owned the land and the sign met zoning requirements, why not?

    1. It’s that pesky property rights thingy again. Newt’s flawed ideology gets in the way of his alleged Enlightenment principles.

    2. “”They don’t? If they owned the land and the sign met zoning requirements, why not?””

      They should try it and see.

  35. Has no one noticed that the Haaretz article has been updated? The report is false.

    1. My bad. NYDN says the report is false:

      http://www.nydailynews.com/blo…..z0wnpmE3RJ

    2. SHhhhhhhh! Let the Real ‘Merkins have their moment.

  36. This whole business would’ve been far more entertaining if it had involved Sikhs building a gurdwara on the spot.

    1. Because people would have thought they were Mooselems and it would have played out exactly the same?

      1. Eeexactly.

      2. Frankly, I’m Sikh of this story.

        1. In all seriousness, I wonder what would’ve happened? I’d like to think any backlash against the Sikhs would’ve been stopped before it went anywhere, but who knows?

          1. Given Americans’ general ignorance of other religions and cultures, I’d predict that they’d lynch a few Sikhs first and ask questions later, then apologize and bring brownies. And Bibles.

            1. Given Americans’ general ignorance of other religions and cultures, I’d predict that they’d lynch a few Sikhs first and ask questions later, then apologize and bring brownies. And Bibles.

              Yes, just like all those Sikh-lynchings after 9/11.

              1. Does being blown up count? I mean, we were basically the victims of an “oops, wrong kind of brown people.”

              2. Yes, just like all those Sikh-lynchings after 9/11.

                I’d call it a “murder” but there was one right after 9/11 in Mesa Arizona.

                1. That stinks, but falls somewhat short of a nationwide wave of vengeance.

      3. I think you under estimate the intelligence of average people.

        1. I fear you underestimate the volume (in the auditory sense) of idiots.

        2. I was thinking of the attacks on Sikhs after 9/11. I doubt that we’d have exactly the same brouhaha we have now if it were Sikhs, but I do wonder if opposition, if it got started by mistake, would be easy to completely kill off (“They aren’t Muslim, for the love of God!”)

          1. I was thinking of the attack on that Sikh after 9/11

            FIFY

  37. Sob sob sob. The mosque may not be built. Oh, please, what a bunch of 2-faced weenies.

    You clowns wouldn’t defend Christianity from… well, anything. But that’s okay. I mean, what would the cool kids think if you carried around a Sarah Palin lunchbox?

    Remember that wonderful book from George Lakoff about how Conservatives use symbology and coded language to communicate?

    Well, how the f*&) would you lefties and anarcho-capitalist-room over parents’ garage dwellers know anything about subtle hints?

    This Cordoba project isn’t coded language. This isn’t the type of subtle verbal cues that Dick Cheney used to garner his 15% approval rating. This isn’t the type of subtle language that Bush used to convince the smart and Sciency Senate Democrats to vote for Iraqi Freedom….3 years before he took office!

    No no no! This Cordoba building is a stick in the eye of 9-11 and all that’s followed afterwards.

    How about building the mosque a few miles away, maybe even in another borough?

    1. I don’t think any of the regular posters here would argue that property rights don’t apply to Christians, even though most of the regular posters don’t much care for Christianity.

      1. Or intellectual property, for that matter.

    2. I never came here to defend any philosophy that I don’t subscribe to.

      Just to defend property rights against weepy little girls who get their feelings hurt by people who look sorta like people who did something bad trying to do something that has nothing to do with anything.

      1. We’re supposed to stand at attention and sing God Bless America whenever somebody mentions Ground Zero. It’s Hallowed Ground?!

      2. Why do you call yourself Hugh Akston? Hugh Akston wasn’t an idiot.

        people who share the same philosophy with people who did something bad

        FIFY

        Why do you all devolve to this inane ‘look’ thing? ‘Brown people’ all the damned time. And them half of you decry identity politics–while you’re playing identity politics yourselves.

        It’s about ideology. I don’t like their ideology. Their ideology wants to get rid of my ideology–and they preach this at least 5 times a day, 365 days a year.

        My ideology demands that I tolerate theirs. Tolerate, not celebrate. And I’m happy to do that–so long as their ideology leaves me alone.

        But it doesn’t. It can’t.

        So I’ve gotta do something to defend my ideology from being destroyed by theirs.

        Ideology. Not skin color. Not looks.

    3. If the shrieking masses demand that a single church on private property be moved because a question of “taste” or “sensitivity,” I will defend Christians for the first time in my life. And I fucking hate Christians.

      1. Say, isn’t the president a Christian?

        1. Oh ProL, you know that intelligent, worldly agents of TEAM BLUE don’t believe in that crap. They go through the motions to placate the sheeple.

        2. The 44th and counting.

          1. Washington and Jefferson were deists.

            1. Did they call themselves that on TV?

              1. No, they called themselves that when posting on the internet.

              2. Okay, that was funny.

            2. And Madison.

      2. If the shrieking masses demand that a single church on private property be moved because a question of “taste” or “sensitivity,” I will defend Christians for the first time in my life.

        Sure you will.

  38. Oh, and at least Gingrich and other conservatives get angry over real events, such as massive terror strikes and the Islamists who cheer them.

    Instead of shrieking about…phony computer models and non-existent nooses hung in Jena and congresscritters bleating on and on about imagined saliva at Tea Parties.

    Get your hands up! Who thinks Karl Rove gets indicted before Christmas? Huh? Anyone?

    1. What is Rove’s crime?

      1. It doesn’t matter. Try to humor him while I get the straight jacket.

    2. Gingrich is not a “conservative”. Well maybe like Andrew Sullivan is a conservative and Glen Greenwald is a “libertarian”.

    3. “Oh, and at least Gingrich and other conservatives get angry over real events, such as massive terror strikes and the Islamists who cheer them.”

      Weird, it sounded to me like they were getting mad over Muslims trying to build a community center. If that’s their way of getting mad over past “terror strikes”, then people getting mad about nooses are getting mad over something “real” too, namely all the lynchings that happened in the past. But nooses are at least a clear attempt to send a hostile message.

  39. Jeebus H. Fuck. This again? Fun reading the comments anyway…

  40. How about the feelings of the families of the Americans and Muslims and Joooos and Gay Women and cops and plumbers and evil Capitalists and secretaries who came to work one Tuesday and were greeted by…

    A large fireball.

    As for defending Christians, 2 recent examples of Libertarian silence.

    What about that War Memorial cross near San Diego? You know, private property owners, legal contract with the government, but in steps the ACLU to the rescue.

    Or the cross in the LA County Seal. LA– home to Reason.com. Monks or some Christian group did help start up the city. But some phony nonsense about the separation of God and State (which doesn’t really apply in these two cases– See your money and coins for further examples.) and boom. No more Christian cross on the seal of LA.

    But, hey, the LA Seal still has the Goddess Pomona on it. Well, unless Pomona is the subject of a Mel Gibson movie, I’d say she’s pretty safe.

  41. Again, slowly, Karl Rove-no crimes. Hounded by the left as if he was Satan himself.

    Islamists boast murdering by the thousands and the Left says regarding them: What? Who? Huh? When? What? What? No, I’m busy playing Hacky Sack.

    So the same left shrieked about the symbolism of Rove speaking in public (like at colleges or book tours), but sees no symbolism of a mosque near the WTC sites?

    Fuck you!

    1. You are by far the worst conservative troll I have seen on these boards.

      Good day sir.

  42. You left out something from Park51’s tweets on the subject:

    “On a side note, if Haaretz likes publishing fables, perhaps they could go back to the Yiddish ones with parables”

    Good people. Building bridges. Talkin’ like Nazis. Good times.

    1. Stevo Darkly?

      Is that you?

  43. Yes, but in the eyes of Real Libertarians, even though Gingrich understands free market economics and would govern much more Libertarian that many politicians, he must be denounced!

    That dude picked up a Bible a few times in his life and never in disgust! Well, harummph!

    Sure, the direction of the country is one thing, but getting back at my parents and other authority figures, now that’s the real issue.

    1. Newt Gingrich is the author of American corporatism. His current mask is as a panderer to the far right because he wants to regain legitimacy in order to, I dunno, finish the job and take us to a full-on banana republic? Oh and he’s an adulterous hypocrite who left office in a cloud of shame after having put the country through an embarrassing political circus.

      1. Newt Gingrich works with Nancy Pelosi to legislate against Global Warming. He backs Dem-favored candidates like Charlie Crist and DeeDee Scozzafava.

        You are so stuck in the 90s Trony

        1. But lately Gingrich has been stuck in the Pleistocene.

          1. You must be referring to the great flood.

  44. I posted this on Cathy Young’s article, but it got no responses, so I’m giving you guys another chance:

    jtuf|8.14.10 @ 11:06PM|#
    Here is a Jerusalem Post article about the controversy over Jews moving into a neighborhood. The author mentions “concerns or grievances about the Jewish presence”. So, who among the mosque’s defenders will stand up here for the right of Jews to move into the neighborhood in question?

    1. More importantly…what?

    2. Sorry, the link was broken. This link should work.

    3. First of all, the Jews have lived in the town for like 60 years (according to the article). Second of all, they have every right to build whatever they want as long as they own the land. Like I’ve said about the community center, what they are doing is fucked up and insensitive, but it’s still their right.

  45. Property Rights > team red culture war victory

    Religious rights > team red Culture war victory

    Property rights > threat of some hypothetical team Osama Bin laden rhetorical victory

    Religious rights > threat of some hypothetical team Osama Bin laden rhetorical victory.

    I could do this all day. The Conservotarians need to keep their eyes on the ball and drop this shit.

    The only thing remotely rational you can say is “I think it is great that in this county Muslims are allowed to worship on their own private land. Now if only the left would allow me to build a deck in my back yard so i can worship my gill this labor day with some cold bear and charred bratsworth.”

    Anything beyond that and you are fucking yourself.

    1. It would be more of a libertarian issue if Muslim developers were trying to build a WalMart in lower Manhattan.

      1. Good point, SIV. A caller brought up a similar point on the radio yesterday morning. It’s very common for people to protest a new Walmart. Over a decade of protests against Walmart construction have set the stage for protests against the Islamic center at Ground Zero. We’ve got to get make to private land rights and take these building decisions out of the public sphere.

  46. Who cares if Gingrich screws sheep with his wife’s dildos? He’d be more favorable to libertarianism than many. That’s the point. I know you’re not a Libertarian, Tony. My comments were more directed at the anti-Christian libertarians, who are more afraid of Jesus than anything else. Even though Jesus never existed, he must be crushed…. Though he’s a joke who never existed…. but he and his followers must be crushed… but he never existed…. His followers must be destroyed…

    But anyway, Tony, I’m sure you don’t regret pulling that 2004 lever for John Edwards, right?

    1. I think he existed and i kind of like him.

      Is that gay?

      1. no homo, my son.

    2. I’ve never voted for Edwards, he struck me as a phony from day one.

      1. You didn’t vote for the Dems in Nov 2004? If you did, you voted for him as VP.

        1. Shit, I always forget he was actually on the ticket. That’s kind of surreal. To be fair his counterpart did shoot someone in the face and I’m not talking about spooge.

          1. Boooooo. I was hoping you voted for the Greens.

          2. Um, there were more than two options that election cycle, although the Libertarian candiate in 2004 was not too appealing.

            1. There are never more than two options. Not saying it’s right, but it’s true. Ask anyone who thought voting for Nader in Florida was a brilliant idea.

  47. A little background on Feisal Abdul Rauf from Wikipedia:

    Columnist Jonathan Rauch wrote that Abdul Rauf gave a “mixed, muddled, muttered” message after 9/11.[20] Nineteen days after the attacks, he told CBS’s 60 Minutes that fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. Rauch said that the message was mixed, however, because when then asked if the U.S. deserved the attacks, Rauf answered: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”[21][22][3] Rauch observed: “Note the verb. The crime “happened”?”[20]

    When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. an accessory, he replied, “Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”[5][21][22] Peter T. King, Rick Lazio, and Sarah Palin expressed concern about his remarks, when discussing Abdul Rauf as the driving force behind the Cordoba mosque.[21][23][24]

    At National Review, Dan Foster wrote:

    When you say that the United States was “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11, as he did, it tends to blunt my ability to pick up the subtleties of what comes after. That interview was equivocal at every turn, and when moral equivalences are trotted out re: 9/11, the tie goes to “your either with us, or with the terrorists.” In other words, we are perfectly entitled to suspect that the “accessories to the crime” bit represents the investment, while the “condemning terrorism” bit is merely the hedge.[25]

    Sounds a bit sympathetic to Mr. Bin Laden’s murderous act to me.

    1. It doesn’t sound that way at all to me.

      Not one bit.

  48. Regarding polled opposition to Cordoba project, again from Wikipedia:

    The proposed location of the mosque triggered an intense nation-wide controversy.[8][9][10] Polls showed that a majority of Americans (a margin of 54%?20%) opposed building the mosque on that site, as did most people from New York State (61%?26%) and New York City (52%?31%); in Manhattan, 46% supported the project while 36% were opposed.[11][12][13]

    1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything political or contentiously debated.

  49. 280 fucking comments over a post based on false information.

    that has got to be a fucking record.

    1. From the David Bowie song “After All”.

      Forget all I’ve said, please bear me no ill, Oh by jingo.

    2. That is what happens when you call honest, fair-minded people, “Jingoistic Rabble Rousers”.

      1. Fair-minded my ass.

        1. Timon, I’ve asked you before, please wipe off your shoes between visiting CNN.com and coming here. I don’t like you bringing that filth in here.

          1. Haven’t read a comment thread there in well over a week. The stupid is too much to bear there.

    3. It’s like every thread at Daily Kos.

  50. Tony|8.16.10 @ 5:48PM|#

    What victory? There’s nothing to rile up the GOP base with anymore. Well, they still have mexicans and gays.

    Oh, no, no xenophobia or Muslim bashing coming from the left. None at all. Clean as the wind driven snow. Just change your name to hypocrite already, you fucking hack.

  51. Tony|8.16.10 @ 5:48PM|#

    What victory? There’s nothing to rile up the GOP base with anymore. Well, they still have mexicans and gays.

    Just change your name to hypocrite already, you fucking hack.

  52. Democrat: Why are you using xenophobia and Muslim bashing in a cynical move for political gain?

    Republican: I learned it from you, dad!

    1. I just heard on wabc radio that Senator Reid wants the Islamic Center at Ground Zero moved to a different location. I wonder how many media outlets who reported Newt’s and Palin’s comments will report on Reid’s comment.

      1. OK. I checked google news. Most of them reported on Reid’s comment.

  53. The government stopped the KKK from being a part of the “adopt a highway” project… There’s no freedom of religion if you can prove somebody is in a political cult. Don’t even ask about Waco, TX.

    *shudders at the horror*

  54. It’s a firestorm! A firestorm!

  55. @FromSchumerWithHate. Nice reference — I had forgotten all about the Dems’ racist jingoism on the Dubai Ports deal.

    1. Yeah, that was a giant clusterfuck, too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.