Terrorism

Who Supports The "Ground Zero Mosque"? Wouldja Believe Con Talker Laura Ingraham?

|

That's from a December 2009 segment with Laura Ingraham guest-hosting The O'Reilly Factor, talking about "the Cordoba House." She notes, "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it… I like what you're trying to do." More background on how the mosque story became the shitstorm it has (hat tip: Julian Sanchez's Twitter feed).

Earlier this month, Ingraham appeared on Good Morning America and had something else to say about the matter: "There's a disconnect…between the elites and the way they think about this and most New Yorkers and most of the country… I say the terrorists have won the way this has gone down."

Not all conservatives are opposed to the mosque. As Josh Barro wrote at National Review:

So much of the complaint about the mosque has centered around the idea that, because hijackers acting in the name of Islam attacked the towers, Muslims should maintain a respectful distance. But the developers of Cordoba House (why do I even need to say this?) are not terrorists and did not attack the towers. Placing a burden on all Muslims to keep their institutions out of the Financial District is unfair.

Which isn't to say that President Obama hasn't massively mishandled the situation by failing to make a clear statement on the matter (or refusing to make a statement altogether).

But it is to say that the "Ground Zero Mosque" is a classic non-story that may well help whatever electoral swing is in the process of playing out be a bit more severe. Yet contrary to The New York Times' Ross Douthat, there isn't so much as two Americas split between tolerance for the mosque and absolute rejection of any it through any means necessary.

There's two Americas split between important issues—ranging from how the government for the past decade or more has screwed the economy with reckless spending and warfare to wondering how long the current jobless non-recovery is going to last to what to do to defend against actual terrorism not demagogic bullshit like the "Ground Zero Mosque"—and unimportant ones. And there's two Americas split between pundits who will say vastly different things on the same topic as the bandwagon cranks up and the rest of us, pundit or not, who try to be consistent based on principles.

NEXT: More on the Endless Bummer

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. They certainly have the right to build their mosque, but they’re not advancing their cause by doing so.

    1. Their “cause” in building the mosque is in order to do a triumphant end-zone dance on the ashes of their murdered enemies and exhibit the weakness and pusillanimity of western civilization to their fellow death cult members.

      Mission accomplished.

      1. I’m gonna give this a 7 on the trollmeter. Close enough to the crap some people spout to seem somewhat real, but not enough words spelled wrong and verbal spittle on the chin to be ultimately believable.

        1. New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

          The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna”

          http://www.ottawacitizen.com/n…..z0wcZNOGAS

          1. Ah, the new go-to link of the “refudiators”.

            New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers.

            You know the capacities of the 30 mosques their typical occupancies? Of course this has nothing to do with the community center aspect of the thing.

            And here I go, feeding the trolls the porn they so crave.

            1. “The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel.”

              Fuck Sarah Palin, by the way.

            2. Most recent I have heard was around 100, but still no authoritative source for the number.

          2. There are 600,000 Muslims in NYC. That means there’s only one mosque, of varying sizes, for every 20,000 Muslims.

            1. How Jews are there, and how many synagogues are there?

              How many Catholics, and how many churches?

          3. “””http://www.ottawacitizen.com/n…..z0wcZNOGAS””

            Who cares what Canada has to say, they’re not a real country anyway. 😉

        2. I’m not saying they should be legally prevented from building it, I’m just saying that if we had the same confidence in our culture that they do in theirs an American would fly a fucking plane into it out of spite.

          1. American culture is defended by flying planes into buildings full of innocent people? I thought that was just some crazy guy in Austin, TX.

            1. War is hell, son.

            2. They were IRS employees, therefore not innocent.

          2. The fact that the vast majority of Americans will simply go about their daily business as usual tells me everything I need to know about the confidence they have in their culture.

            1. Exactly. If they had any confidence in their culture, Washington D.C. would be burning right now.

  2. There ARE two Americas, you semi-literate right-wing twat.

    1. Exactly: The bureaucrat class and their unionized supporters vs those that are plundered to enrich them.

      1. I thought he mean North and South America, respectively.

        1. Having lived in both, you’d think I’d be a little more up on that.

      2. “This isn’t governance, it’s organized crime.”

    2. Geographically and on a continental scale, I agree with Max completely.

  3. But the developers of Cordoba House (why do I even need to say this?) are not terrorists

    Since we don’t know who is paying for it, how can we say for sure whether they are or are not terrorists?

    1. I’m not sure, but if you want to make the claim that the $ is coming from “terrorists”, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. It’s an accusation that’s being thrown out there by opponents. They know it’s not likely true, but it’s also something that resonates among the Kettles.

      1. He didn’t say the money is coming from terrorists, he said we don’t know where it’s coming from and, for all we know, it may be coming from terrorists or their supporters.

        Josh Barro at NRO was the one making the flat claim that the financiers aren’t terrorists.

      2. I think the money opposing the building is coming from terrorists. Prove me wrong!

    2. What we can say is that the people who are heading up and organizing the project are not terrorists and are actively working against terrorism and its root causes. It is, of course, entirely possible that some terrorist organizations are helping with funding the center…which would be a beautiful irony in my view.

    3. There’s a Catholic Church near the British consulate in New York. We don’t know if IRA terrorists or their supporters, like Rep. King, financed it. Therefore, out of sensitivity to our British allies, we should ask the church to kindly move.

      1. Sorry Mo, but no comparison here.The IRA has no support for violence from the Catholic Church, and its members did not base their activities on religious dogma ? the conflict with the Protestants was about the political and economical advantages they received from England in return for moving into North Ireland to control the natives who happened to be Catholic.

        1. I didn’t realize there was a centralized Islamic hierarchy akin to the Catholic Church that approved of OBL’s actions. You also failed to notice that many of the chief complaints given were political and economic with religion used as a cover.

          1. Actually, even more disturbing than the idea of a centralized Islamic authority’s support of OBL was the approval of crowds of muslims and their Imams everywhere celebrating 9/11 from Lebanon to Paterson NJ.
            And why don’t you tell OBL that he is using religion as a cover and perhaps he is not a true muslim? My money is on OBL demonstrating that he is a faithful follower of the Sunnah and the Quran.

    4. “”Since we don’t know who is paying for it, how can we say for sure whether they are or are not terrorists?””

      Following the money trail is a very used tool in our anti-terrorist operations. If it is terrorist money, we will not fairly quickly.

      1. “” If it is terrorist money, we will not fairly quickly.”‘

        What?

        If terrorist money is being used, we will find out fairly quickly.

  4. “There’s a disconnect…between the elites and the way they think about this and most New Yorkers and most of the country…”

    Seems factually true.

    “I say the terrorists have won the way this has gone down.”

    Pretty sure that people of whatever view, including full-throated support for the entire Cordoba House, could take this position. (Arguing that the backlash itself is proof of the terrorists winning, etc.)

  5. There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.

    But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora ? and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.

    These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero…

    They’ll need leaders, in other words, who understand that while the ideals of the first America protect the e pluribus, it’s the demands the second America makes of new arrivals that help create the unum.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…..ef=opinion

    1. I read this, and I think Ross missed something very important when he talks about the tension between the constitutional and cultural sides of America. One grew from the other.

      America’s bizarre blend of a culture stems from the country’s structure.

      The thing he misses is something that someone said in response to a VDH column in PJM–that people don’t leave their countries of birth because they love them so much–yet when they get here we often see this hyperidealised version of it come out. In the past, the slow steady pressure towards Americanisation morphed that idealisation into family traditions, enthic celebrations, and foods being the underlayment to American assimilation.

      The tension he speaks of is a by-product of multiculturalism. It’s the practice of encouraging seperateness. The GZM furor isn’t an example of innate tension–it’s the product of deliberate attempts to de-‘unum’ the unum.

      Muslims who were really not looking back, who were Americanised, would not be a problem–by these are extremely rare. Instead, we get Muslims who are ghettoized, Muslims whose ethnic enclaves have become walled camps–camps that protect the culture of the old country from contamination by the culture of the new.

      The alliegence to the Constitution is the thing that has been compromised. Many of our new arrivals are steered along paths that leave them seperate even generations after their arrival.

      They’ve never felt the welcome of America because that very welcome has been made out to be cultural death to them.

      1. The average Muslim has the sense to take the long view and support the strong horse, which is obviously not us.

        1. How many Muslims have you interacted with?

      2. Where do you live? If what you assert that Muslims usually live in ghettoized ethnic enclaves is true, then I guess I’ve been living in some sort of ghetto here in Queens, NY. There are plenty of Muslims living in my section of Queens, though I guess I never realized how ‘separate’ they were. Thanks for opening my eyes to the ghetto around me!!

        1. This.

          Also, Akron, Cleveland, and Columbus must be some sort of Muslim ghetto. (hold all your jokes)

        2. Where do you live in Queens? A friend lived in a majority Muslim neighborhood when last I lived in NYC. But that was a while ago.

          The meaning behind the term ‘ghettoised’ is insular and hostile, both stemming from an attitude that there is a larger society keeping them that way.

          1. I live in Flushing, Queens, the former home of Najibullah Zazi. I grew up with Muslim classmates and friends and there are many Muslims in my neighborhood and I never felt they were ‘walling’ themselves off. Not anymore so than my numerous East-Asian neighbors.

      3. “Muslims who were really not looking back, who were Americanised, would not be a problem–by these are extremely rare. Instead, we get Muslims who are ghettoized, Muslims whose ethnic enclaves have become walled camps–camps that protect the culture of the old country from contamination by the culture of the new.”

        Horseshit. I don’t think you know what the meaning of “ghetto”, “camp”, or “wall” is.

        1. naw, steinway st. has tons of walls. holding up the sides of hookah bars and kebab joints, but yeah. WAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLS!

        2. In the same fashion as you fail to understand metaphor?

          1. A metaphor has to have some connection to reality. Yours don’t.

  6. They certainly have the right to build their mosque, but they’re not advancing their cause by doing so.

    If they’re smart enough to be making Libertarians?, TEAM BLUE! types, and other establishmentarians more anti-anti-Islamic part of “their cause,” they’re doin’ great.

  7. “There’s two Americas split between important issues… and unimportant ones.”

    This is why libertarianism will never take hold, and why places like Reason will always be political backwaters.

    One of the biggest obstacles that libertarianism faces is that too many people equate libertarians with libertines. A real libertarian should be content to let non-coercive, market-based, non-governmental forces decide the issue. But no, crypto-libertines like Ersatz Fonzerelli, can’t leave well enough alone. It’s not enough to point out that there is and should be a legal right to erect a Ground Zero mosque. They have to wander away from libertarianism as a political philosophy and lecture us on why opposition to the Ground Zero mosque is wrong.

    Of course, confusing libertarianism and libertinism is kind of a hobby for Ersatz Fonzerelli.

    1. Ah, yes. REAL libertarians only have opinions when they agree with you! If they don’t, they should shut up, because using the free press to say what you think of a political controversy is SO un-libertarian.

  8. +1000 indeed! Plus, he’s so handsome!

    1. LOL, I like this.

  9. ?”Freedom & Democracy” demands we allow a death cult to construct a triumphant temple to their blood god on the site of their most notable recent atrocity.

    It’s the act of a civilization that considers itself unworthy of survival.

    1. I consider you unworthy of survival and will fly a plane into your house.

      1. If I flew a plane into the Ka’aba, I wonder if the mayor of Mecca would let my friends build a strip club on Ground Zero East?

        1. We have freedom of religion in this country. Are you saying, TGF, because they are restrictive of freedom, we should also be restrictive of freedom?

          1. I am prepared to offer Muslims the same freedom of religion we afford the baby sacrificing cultists of Baal.

        2. “”If I flew a plane into the Ka’aba, I wonder if the mayor of Mecca would let my friends build a strip club on Ground Zero East?”

          If the builder of the Cordoba house was a friend of one the 9/11 hijackers, you might have a point.

      2. I can survive that.

  10. You know who else objected to mosques?

    1. Anyone who suffered through the Islamic conquest of Europe?

      Am I right? What do I win?

      1. The current Islamic conquest of Europe is turning out to be the most successful one yet.

      2. You win a free ham sandwich!

        I still want to market a line of bacon products called “Mohammed’s Finest”, by the way.

  11. What a shame that the very same lying hypocritical scumbags who talk about “freedom of religion” and that people have the right to do whatever they want on their own property won’t allow the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church to be rebuilt.

    I guess what’s good for the Muslim isn’t good for the Christian in New York City. How sad.

    1. This certainly puts things in perspective. Thanks!

    2. Looks like some religions are more equal than others in Bloombergistan.

      1. Indeed. Perhaps the problem with the Greek Orthodox Christians is that they don’t fly enough passenger jets into skycrapers or cut enough peoples’ heads off.

      2. Bloomberg has no authority there. It’s the Port Authority, which is its own little (federally created) fiefdom.

      3. The Port Authority agreed to give the church a parcel of land at Liberty and Greenwich Streets, and contribute $20 million toward construction of a new sanctuary. The Port Authority also agreed to build an explosion-proof platform and foundation for the new church building, which would sit on top of a screening area for cars and trucks entering the underground garages at the new World Trade Center.

        Those oppressive bastards at the Port Authority!

        1. How much was the parcel of land that the church was on worth? That would be something to learn.

          An ‘explosion-proof platform’? So the PA wanted to rebuild the church in harm’s way? How thoughtful.

          And nothing about the odd restrictions on height and design? Restrictions not imposed on the ‘community center’.

    3. Hey, will Reason have a big article on how the church–that was there before the WTC, is being moved 2 blocks from the land they own, and is being subjected to height restrictions so that it doesn’t overshadow the ‘memorial'(the only fitting memorial is two identical towers, maybe with a restaurant on top, maybe a bit taller than they used to be, with the names of all those who died etched on every single beam)?

      But the mosque, also 2 blocks away, is under no height restriction.

      Hmmm….

      1. Can you see from some of the responses here just how fast the excuse factory kicks in and the freedom of religion goes right out the window when it’s not the precious Muslims? “But it’s the Port Authority, not the city!” “We generously gave you a different piece of land after denying you the right to use your original one, therefore we have the right to dictate every aspect of the church construction.” Etcetera, etcetera.

        Leftists are incredible in their capacity to sling around their endless bullcrap.

        1. Read the article. They retain the right to build on their original piece of land. (The church officials apparently wanted a different location, for reasons not specified in the article).

          The bottom line is that the government is not saying “no churches can be built here”. There are simply more bureaucratic hurdles since they want to build in the area where the Port Authority has jurisdiction.

      2. The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building.

        I think you missed that part.

        1. Of course. The government is always completely honest, especially when it comes to property issues.

          When did libertarians become so credulous?

          1. Let me try to explain this to you slowly, so you can understand. The issue with the church is about land use negotiations between the church and the landowners. They are willing to let the church use the land but have a few stipulations on building size. You and I may think the stipulations are stupid and arbitrary, and we would make a good point, but that would mean absolutely nothing since we don’t own the land. The people building the Islamic community center either own the land or have worked out a deal with the landowners and now people are trying to use government force and public shaming to get them to stop because it hurts their sensibilities. Again, fuck their feelings; unless they are the landowners their wants mean shit.

            1. Let me explain this to you slowly, so that YOU can understand it: the church itself owns the original parcel of land where the church stood at 155 Cedar Street, but the Port Authority jumped in and said that if they rebuilt the church there, the Port Authority would then use eminent domain to seize the property so that it could build, quote, “foundation walls and a bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area”, end quote.

              You can play all sorts of games and parse this battle ten different ways to Sunday, but the bottom line is that the government is no longer allowing this church the free use of the land that they own.

      3. “”subjected to height restrictions so that it doesn’t overshadow the ‘memorial'””

        As someone with much experience with lower Manhattan. I have no idea what “overshoadow” means in this case.

        There are many buildings that overshadow pretty much everything in lower Manhattan.

        1. Or overshadow, in this case.

  12. Which isn’t to say that President Obama hasn’t massively mishandled the situation by failing to make a clear statement on the matter (or refusing to make a statement altogether).

    It’s odd how the President is willing to take a firm stance against what he views as enemies of his policy or policy he is against, but he isn’t willing to take a similar position for policy or people he is for.

    It’s almost like the negative stance is something he views as useful and strong while positive supportive stances he sees as weak.

    1. Ummmm, Obama did release a statement on the matter, and actually made sense.

      Took a little while, but given his track record of jumping into horribly mistaken policies, reluctance to act on his part is probably a good thing.

      1. I’m glad someone else thinks this. Obama’s best staying out of this one.

  13. To equate the builders of the mosque with terrorists just because they’re Muslims is like equating all Christians with those who bomb abortion clinics.

    1. “They get bitter, they cling to scimitars or religion of peace or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-secular sentiment or anti-liberty sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    2. And the left doesn’t do this?

      1. Ah, I see – “they do it too!!” is the justification. So “they” do it, and it’s wrong – but that justifies “us” doing it. Wrong when “the other side” does it, but not wrong when “we” do it?

        1. A lot of people here are too stupid to understand this.

          1. So true, Zoltan, particularly when something becomes wrong only when one’s ideological opponents do it.

            In this long debate about Park51, Christians have been repeatedly taken to task for their beliefs, their faith’s past actions, their asininity in believing in a god–and all manner of things. Even this initial comment–about equating Christians with anything–this isn’t about Christians.

            Americans are objecting, some are Christian, of that I have no doubt–and some are not. I am not objecting on any religious grounds whatsoever. I loathe all the forms of the cult of the One God equally. I am objecting because this mosque/community center or whatever they want to call it will serve the needs of the political arm of Islam–regardless of Raufs’ motives(and I do question those motives).

            If the religious and political arms of Islam were seperate this would be simple–but they are not, and this indistinctiveness is easily exploited via our first amendment.

    3. Among the differences: 1) Support for abortion clinic bombing among Christians is, what? Maybe 1% or less? Compare the double-digit percentage of Muslims who think Al Qaeda is doing the right thing. 2) It’s not part of mainstream Christian theology to believe their goal is taking over the world by any means necessary.

      1. You’ve surveyed all Muslims for their opinion regarding support of Al Qaeda?

        It’s also supposedly not part of mainstream Muslim theology to believe their goal is taking over the world by any means necessary.

        BTW, define “mainstream” Christian theology, while we’re at it. I’ve met, seen and heard enough high-profile, self-described “Christians,” with thousands of devoted followers, advocate some pretty bizarre shit. E.g., Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.

        1. Hey, Fuckwad, read this:

          http://pewresearch.org/pubs/14…..-americans

          http://pewresearch.org/pubs/13…..de-bombing

          1. Hey Dipshit, suck my asshole, fuckwad.

            Are we having intelligent debate yet?

          2. Yeah, um, now you’re confusing me. You link to two reports titled “Little Support for Terrorism Among Muslim Americans” and “Declining Support for bin Laden and Suicide Bombing”.

            1. That’s “little” among Muslim Americans, and “declining” from scarily high down to worryingly high. It proves my point.

      2. 9/11 happened because of our meddling foreign policy, not as an act to try to take over the world. Stop our meddling foreign policy and one sided support for Israel and I guarantee terrorist acts against the US would end.

        1. We can have your personal guarantee on that? Wow, I feel so assured and comforted.

          What does the guarantee consist of? What do I get if what you promise does not, in fact, occur?

  14. The U.S. government is the actual party “responsible” for 9/11. I don’t want to see a federal building or, Allah forbid, a bank near the site of the massacre.

  15. 99% of visitors to Ground Zero memorial would not have seen or been aware of a mosque two blocks away had it been built and run quietly.
    Now, due to controversy, they all will be. So radical muslims have won a propaganda victory: if built, the infidels have shown their weakness in the face of our triumph. If not built, the infidels have shown their so-called tolerance of muslims and religious freedom is a lie.
    Which face is it better to show the world and affirm our beliefs?

    1. Now, due to controversy, they all will be. So radical muslims have won a propaganda victory: if built, the infidels have shown their weakness in the face of our triumph.

      The idea that the US is “showing weakness” by following its own constitution (which guarantees freedom of speech and religion); and upholding the rule of law (which requires the city to treat the proposed mosque the same as it would treat any other house of worship proposed in that spot) is total bullshit. The reason this guy has a legal right to build it is not because of anything the terrorists did, but because the US constitution has protected freedom of religion for over 200 years.

      The correct response to that propaganda is to point out how idiotic it is. One could also reiterate that the US is still killing jihadist terrorists on the battlefield in Afghanistan – where the Taliban really has lost power, and Al-Qaeda really has lost its training camps due to US-led military force. Only a delusional person could view the building of this mosque as a sign that the terrorists have triumphed.

      1. Right, and the delusional people I’m talking about are radical muslims. (And Rush and others foaming at the mouth about this being a defeat for America.)

  16. Why is it expected of the President to weigh in on a property use issue in New York?

    This is akin to the beer summit- you’re the President- do President shit.

    1. I was heartened that Obama finally found a private property issue he could get behind (and that didn’t involve plunder of same).

      1. Don’t get me wrong- I agree with his original statement. I just don’t agree with the notion that he should comment on it.

  17. I think we need some kind of system where one group (or corporation) has full control of any particular property. This right would be transferable, and before tansferring this right (probably for money) you’d have to hire some lawyers and stuff to make sure the other actually has full control (we can call it a “title”). That way whenever somebody wants to build something, if they have title, and they aren’t causing some kind of harm to others around them, then they get to make the decision, and it’s not really a political decision. They should look into implementing such a system in NYC, I here its been tried in other places with good results.

    1. Boy, you really are some kind of batshit crazy fucker, aren’t you. Where the hell did you ever get such a bizarre idea for this nonsensical, hypothetical “system” you propose? That’s just nuts. How can they do that if the mayor doesn’t approve of it?

    2. I think that sounds unfair. Why should anyone person get full control? Why can’t the people best decide what to build for the common good of all?

      Your system is so backwards and I wrong, I dare you to show me an example that it works.

  18. Yeah, who cares if some peace-loving Muslims wanna build a tolerance center nearby the place where those stupid buildings got in the way of Mohammed Atta’s first solo flight?

    I mean, there are more important issues out there.

    For instance, is John Stagliano finding his dairy products fresh? What flavored rolling papers does Ron Kubby prefer? I hear some completely entirely 100% innocent bystander who just happened to be caught in a crack house received a dirty look from some cop.

    1. You’re right, there are plenty of issues far more important than this mosque, which is not actually being built “at ground zero.”

  19. I’ll say it again, for a group that supposedly wants to promote understanding, they’re sure doing a piss-poor job of understanding the millions of people who are outraged by this.

    1. Fuck the millions of people in this country who are too retarded to understand that Muslims died in 9/11 too and this particular fucked up religion can build their place of worship wherever they can afford it.

      1. Yeah, at least 19 of them

        1. Is this offhanded quip supposed to mean that you believe that the only Muslims who died that day hated the US and secularism?

          1. From the same type of person who would verbally abuse Middle Eastern looking Christians protesting the Mosque for being Muslim.

          2. Wait–are we supposed to count just the Muslims who died on 9/11 who liked the US and secularism?

            Or can we count them all?

            I’d go with counting them all–it’s a frightenly horrible possibility that, if we only counted the secular, US loving Muslims, the number might be very, very low.

            Oh, and the ‘offhanded quip’ was to point out to the singular retarded person in this country who didn’t realise that the millions who oppose this mosque are all too aware that Muslims died on 9/11.

            Say, if they hadn’t, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. How about that.

            1. So really, you’re saying that only 19 Muslims died that day. That’s pretty awesome.

  20. New Islamic Mosque at Ground Zero?

    I love that headline from the illustration. So good of Fox to clear up that this is an islamic mosque as opposed to a presbyterian mosque.

    Not sure whether that reflects on Fox news or their viewers, but either way it ain’t pretty.

  21. A question for all of you who are whining and hand-wringing about this: How far from Ground Zero should the mosque-exclusion zone extend? Please either illustrate on a map, or provide a distance radius. Are there any other activities that should be prohibited near Ground Zero? If so, what activities, and how big is the exclusion zone?

    1. How far away is Mecca? A little bit further than that.

      1. You can’t even spell ‘fuck’ right, moron. Go back to LGF where you belong with the other mouth-breathing trolls.

        1. How do Mohammed’s pedophile balls taste to you?

      2. +7

    2. Ah, another example of why I describe myself as a moderate libertarian, and am suspicious of purists. Sure, if the principles of private property and freedom of religion always trump everything else, then nothing else counts. But of course if this were a two-story, nondescript building eight blocks away, nobody sane would care. It’s the fact that it’s very close, and very large and prominent, that upsets people. The fact that I can’t produce a diagram showing precisely acceptable distances and heights is irrelevant: it’s a matter of social/emotional judgment, which is always somewhat fuzzy. That doesn’t make the feelings less real or important. (If you think that sort of thing has no importance, I pity your significant other, if you have one.)

      Ideologues often have trouble understanding that many things are matters of degree. As has been pointed out above, if your goal is reconciliation and coexistence and understanding, timing and distance and degree are crucial. You may wish to reconcile with an old friend, but doing so by standing next to his restaurant table and blabbing about it while they are having a business dinner or a date is the wrong way to do it. You have a “right” to be there and to talk to them, but your timing and distance are undercutting your stated purpose. Anyone with any social graces at all knows the polite thing to do is to withdraw, and try a different approach at another time and place. Unless, of course, your agenda isn’t really “reconciliation.”

      1. Papaya, you seem to be implying that all Muslims are guilty of the actions that took place on 9/11/2010. The ones building the mosque had nothing to do with 9/11.

        1. Because this is a matter of taste and discretion, that’s irrelevant. If massive acts of terrorism are committed in the name of X, it taints all followers of X, unfairly or not. When people are upset about the deaths of loved ones, their feelings are not always rational. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take them into account.

      2. The fact that I can’t produce a diagram showing precisely acceptable distances and heights is irrelevant…

        Sigh. No, PapayaSF, defining the exclusion zone is the whole point of the exercise.

        The muslims want to build a mosque on land they own. People like you claim that this mosque is located too close to Ground Zero. People like me who don’t have a direct stake in the argument, are in effect asking the question “if not there, then where?”

        If you can’t, or won’t, engage this question then there is no reason to take you seriously.

        1. In effect, it’s the same problem as the cops who refused to tell Radley what would be a legal way to film police. “I won’t tell you what you *can* do, but you’d better not choose wrong or else” is a stupid standard and anybody who uses it should be publicly shamed in in the same breath as career politicians and people who talk at movies.

        2. I gave you two data points: a 16-story distinct building two blocks away is objectionable. A two-story nondescript building eight blocks away is not objectionable. A diagram based on that would be close.

          1. Papaya, does your personal opinion overrule what people choose to put on their property?

            1. No, because like I said, this is a matter of discretion and manners, not law or rights. And no, I don’t think manners trump law. However, if the goal of the mosque is reconciliation and tolerance and understanding, then it’s undeniably a fail as presently proposed. And it’s stupid and pointless to blame the offended for being offended.

              If you’d like to talk to a pretty girl at a party, you are entirely within your legal rights to talk to her and try to get a date. If she thinks you are coming on too strong, she can walk away. Your “rights” are irrelevant.

              Tonio would probably demand a written set of rules defining “coming on too strong”: How many inches away must he stand? What’s the maximum decibel rating of his voice? What’s the allowable percentage of talking versus listening? What words is he not allowed to say? Where should he avoiding looking, and for how long? Those answers are hard to give, because the situation is complex and the answers are somewhat fuzzy and interdependent, and depend on the person and the circumstances. That doesn’t invalidate the concept of “coming on too strong.”

              1. So if a black family is moving into a nice neighborhood but the white neighbors don’t want them there, maybe because their car got broken into by some black youths, it is up to the black family to do the right thing and move away?

                1. It depends on what you think “the right thing” is. If the black family’s goal is to say “I have a right to live here, so buzz off,” then moving there is the right thing. They are totally within their rights. However, if their stated purpose is to promote tolerance and reconciliation, then moving there is not the right thing to do, because if their actions create anger and ill-feeling, they are obviously not creating tolerance and reconciliation.

                  Again, the mosque is not an issue of rights and laws, but of discretion and manners and degree.

              2. No PapayaSF, I wouldn’t. But the ad-hom, and your dogged refusal to actually engage the question speaks volumes.

                I invited you to define the exclusion zone either as a distance radius (ie, nothing closer than, say, one mile) or to mark up an existing street map of Manhattan (no artistic skills required, unlike you implied). You did neither, and introduced this totally bizarre variable about imposing variables.

                I’m the one asking straightforward questions, you’re the one who is not engaging the question. Basically, every answer you give requires too much judgement on the part of others, ie leaves you wiggle room to say that wasn’t what you actually meant.

                Oh, and linear distance or a map mark-up are very simple concepts, and totally relevant here. Your “date” example above is irrelevant, bizarre, time-wasting bullshit.

                1. imposing buildings

                2. Of course you are asking me “straight-forward questions,” and I’m telling you that, like lots of things in human social interaction, it’s not possible to give hard, precise answers to questions of discretion and manners and taste and other people’s feelings. The best one can usually do is describe some general rules, but one must always be aware what reactions are provoked by your actions.

                  I’ll bet you’re a lot of fun at parties.

          2. Not objectionable to YOU, maybe, but what about the real pants-wetters out there? There seems to be a real undercurrent of “no Muslims anywhere” going on, so they’d likely find a reason to opposed a 2-story building 8 blocks away as well.

          3. Still not a responsive answer, PapayaSF. You want something. You can’t quantify what you want, yet you disingenuously offer examples and expect others to derive your wants from those examples.

            If you can state your needs clearly and in such a way that other can interpret those needs, maybe the adults will hold a conversation with you about meeting your needs. Otherwise…

            1. See above.

    3. I would extend the ground zero radius to encompass the entire country and the activities I would prohibit are Zoning and land use regulations.

      Fundamentally the masque thing is Nimbysm and the reasons people think they can use the government to stop what their neighbor does on their property is because of these stupid fucking land use regulations.

  22. I tell you what, Tonio, why not give a hand? In fact, why don’t you get up in a plane and hover just about the same height as the former WTC.

    Then, without a parachute, why don’t you jump out of the plane (while pretending you’re on fire). Then as you’re falling, snap some photos or perhaps Twitter what you think would be a reasonable place for this new Tolerance Center.

    1. Congratulations, that’s the stupidest goddamn thing I’ve ever read in my life. Where can I send the bill for my asprin?

    2. I would like to something something your newsletter something something.

    3. I tell you what, Tonio, why not give a hand? In fact, why don’t you get up in a plane and hover just about the same height as the former WTC.

      Dude, if you actually manage to get access to a Harrier, you’ll be a God.

  23. Y’know, I bet if we beat this horse some more, it’ll quit playing dead and get up and walk.

  24. So let me guess this straight, Zoltan, mosques can be built anywhere, but posters you don’t agree with shouldn’t be allowed to post here?

    Do your parents know they have a totalitarian douchebag in their basement or was your collection of semen-hardened tube socks their first clue?

  25. It’s sad to see basically non-religious folks fall over themselves to defend a faith that murders free thinkers and destroys freedom whenever it gets into power. You can still hold on to your intellectual credentials while pointing out that this mosque is a terrible idea and obviously not there to ‘build any bridges’. Anything else is sophistry.

    At times I wish that the Middle East was run by Christian Kings instead of Islamic dictators. Then, perhaps, the Left and the Left-leaning Libertarians would feel free to actually engage their brains instead of worrying if they agree with Sarah Palin on an issue.

    1. Fascinating. Under your logic, I should have been killed each of the dozen times I’ve made a trip to a Muslim country and interacted with Muslims.

      1. No, Timon, they don’t kill the dhimmi. They cravenly bomb women and children to try to scare free peoples and keep them from turning their holy city into a sheet of glass.

        Don’t worry, you’re safe–it’s the rest of us that have to fight because there are so many just like you.

        1. *yawn*

          Your bigotry is showing again, what with your completely unqualified “they” and all.

          1. Timon, I am a bigot. There is me, and whoever I care about, and then there are the rest of you, to be categorized into various ‘theys’.

            How sad that the English language allowed such a virulent term of bigotry in–‘they’.

  26. It is not your land so shut the fuck up. If you really have a problem with it then try to buy it yourself.

    Speaking of which Rush was bitching about this on the radio today. He has money why doesn’t he make them an offer for the land?

    1. “”It is not your land so shut the fuck up. If you really have a problem with it then try to buy it yourself.””

      People can’t help it if they think their opinion has a value greater than 0.

    2. But this is a comment board.

      1. Yeah yeah yeah i know. But sometimes the cultural conservatives here piss me off.

        I believe in free speech and all that. But the rhetoric from these guys is over the top. and they believe in property rights.
        The solution is simple quit bitching about it on hit and run and start a web site for donations in an attempt to buy the land. simple as that.

  27. It is kind of amazing what a hateful douche like Pamela Geller can accomplish. I mean, look at these comments.

  28. Laura Ingraham says whatever she’s getting paid to say that day – if you think what she does is real journalism, you may as well get your current events from the Weekly World News.

    The “NO GROUND ZERO MOSQUE” protests have achieved one solid result: a propaganda home-run for Al Qaeda & the Taliban. They ought to declare Pamela Gellar an honorary martyr of Jihad.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.