al-Zahar, still irrelevant in 2010, regardless of how much the right wing culture warriors wish to make him a poster boy of all of Islam. Christian wackos don't define Christianity to actual Christians, Muslim wackos don't define Islam to actual Muslims.
And that's the difference between the US and Saudi Arabia.
We allow minority religions the right to worship, gather, and organize... they don't. Why would I want to live in the bizarro world Saudi Arabia where you can't put a mosque in lower Manhattan, or Staten Island, or Tennessee, or California?
Saudi Arabia banning churches and their thinking behind such banning, is exactly the reason why we should allow people to build mosques. We don't share those ideas, we don't adopt their tactics.
Does the fact she is (honestly and openly) involved with GIYUS change the fact that al-Zahar did in fact say what the NY Post says he said? Can you address the content instead of trying to divert attention to the poster?
I think 9/11 families might have an argument if the building would be in sight of the proposed 9/11 memorial of Ground Zero. But even now with everything under construction unless you have x ray vision to see through 2 whole city block of skyscrapers you can't see one spot from the other. Some deference to their opinion might be warranted if it was literally across the street from the memorial, or if part of the site was sold off to be a mosque, but this does not qualify. That, and considering they are rebuilding part of it as a mall and multi-modal transport hub and neither of those offend 9/11 families, historical preservation and reverence for the dead does not seem to be their primary motivation.
There is much hypocrisy in a Hamas leader praising our freedom of religion while seeking to deny his own people their own, but we shouldn't succumb to their hypocrisy.
Do you know what's really pathetic? Your ignorance. Really, if you're going to take the time to open your trap, why not try and get educated beforehand?
In '48 there was a powerful current in the US government to oppose the creation of the State of Israel. Once the Soviet-Arab coalition became clear and the threat of loosing Middle East oil to the Soviets became real, the US threw its lot with Israel.
From '48 to '73 Israel had little or no material support from the US. Three of Israel's major wars were fought with outdated French and British equipment mostly. In '73, after the South Asian debacle of Vietnam the US became more active in the Middle East, again protecting their oil-based interests.
US aid to Israel is mostly in the form of loan guarantees, not money, with the specific clauses that such loans have to be spent in the US. That means that your tax dollars are supporting your own compatriots, but the product is parked in my lawn.
We work very hard. Israel has the highest ration of published academic papers per capita in the world. We are the second country in the world in number of start-ups. Many technologies you use in your daily ignorant life were created, developed and perfected here.
Can't you just smell the election nearing?
The media has got the Hate Machine (TM) cranking up to full noise.
First the gays, then the Mexicans, now the Muslims... and it's only August!
Chicken Little's going to have an embolism before this one's done.
"Sensitivity" and "feelings" may have no weight in determining whether there is a legal ground for preventing the building of the mosque / community center.
In the name of historic preservation or memorial, I don't mind placing specific limits on commercial construction... like the Wal-Mart that was being proposed in VA that you could see from George Washington's residence at Mount Vernon as an example, or that in DC no building is allowed to be as tall as the Washington Monument.
But the families didn't object to only a small portion of the site being refurbished as a memorial while the rest gets redeveloped. It seems disingenuous that it's ok to redevelop most of the land, yet object to a Mosque that's not only not on the site, but also not in view of the memorial to potentially antagonize visitors.
To some degree, I think governments can place a limit on what goes around locations of national historical or cultural significance, but the limit has to be narrow (personally I go with the out of sight/out of mind as a litmus test). Cordoba House doesn't qualify.
I agree that people should be permitted to build places of worship freely. It is a right.
But I disagree that they don't have to take into account the personal feelings (or opinions, as the reader's cynicism level may require) of those that live in the place where the place of worship will be built. I'd be against a synagogue in the middle of a predominantly militant-extremist-Muslim neighborhood.
My comment about the oranges was a tongue-in-cheek way to bring out the fact that what they demand for themselves they're not ready to give to others. By this, I mean those that fund the dissemination of specific forms of Islam, like Saudi Arabia's extremist Wahabism.
I don't know if I agree with you here. After all, the people that did 9/11 weren't screaming "Great Prices Till Friday", they were screaming "Allahu Akbar". While I personally may think it is bad taste to redevelop the place so close to the memorial, sensibilities to that do vary. The Cordoba House perhaps by itself is not the problem. Perhaps the problem of those opposing it is to have a central place with an augmented flux of Muslims coming so close to the nexus of America's feelings about Islam-motivated extremism.
I hope you see what I mean, I find it difficult to express.
a) nobody "gave" us a country - we were here, and since then we have worked very hard to keep it.
b) does the fact she is called "israeligirl" change anything about the article in question? Isn't there a debate going on about this project, and isn't this valid news about it?
It seems that someone here is trying to push hatred and discrimination - and it is not she.
dalhectarAug 16, 2010Buried
I suppose if al-Zahar from Hamas said oranges were tasty and a gift from Allah we'd stop growing them in Florida and California too right?
dalhectarAug 16, 2010Buried
Hamas ≠ Islam
Hamas ≠ Cordoba House
al-Zahar, still irrelevant in 2010, regardless of how much the right wing culture warriors wish to make him a poster boy of all of Islam. Christian wackos don't define Christianity to actual Christians, Muslim wackos don't define Islam to actual Muslims.
dalhectarAug 16, 2010Buried
And that's the difference between the US and Saudi Arabia.
We allow minority religions the right to worship, gather, and organize... they don't. Why would I want to live in the bizarro world Saudi Arabia where you can't put a mosque in lower Manhattan, or Staten Island, or Tennessee, or California?
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7488854
http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/49904/
http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20107150342
Saudi Arabia banning churches and their thinking behind such banning, is exactly the reason why we should allow people to build mosques. We don't share those ideas, we don't adopt their tactics.
tgrhAug 16, 2010Buried
And were it not for the engineered outrage this statement from Hamas would be irrelevant. congratulations nutjobs, you have empowered our enemies.
foopirataAug 16, 2010Buried
Does the fact she is (honestly and openly) involved with GIYUS change the fact that al-Zahar did in fact say what the NY Post says he said? Can you address the content instead of trying to divert attention to the poster?
dalhectarAug 16, 2010Buried
I think 9/11 families might have an argument if the building would be in sight of the proposed 9/11 memorial of Ground Zero. But even now with everything under construction unless you have x ray vision to see through 2 whole city block of skyscrapers you can't see one spot from the other. Some deference to their opinion might be warranted if it was literally across the street from the memorial, or if part of the site was sold off to be a mosque, but this does not qualify. That, and considering they are rebuilding part of it as a mall and multi-modal transport hub and neither of those offend 9/11 families, historical preservation and reverence for the dead does not seem to be their primary motivation.
There is much hypocrisy in a Hamas leader praising our freedom of religion while seeking to deny his own people their own, but we shouldn't succumb to their hypocrisy.
foopirataAug 17, 2010Buried
Do you know what's really pathetic? Your ignorance. Really, if you're going to take the time to open your trap, why not try and get educated beforehand?
In '48 there was a powerful current in the US government to oppose the creation of the State of Israel. Once the Soviet-Arab coalition became clear and the threat of loosing Middle East oil to the Soviets became real, the US threw its lot with Israel.
From '48 to '73 Israel had little or no material support from the US. Three of Israel's major wars were fought with outdated French and British equipment mostly. In '73, after the South Asian debacle of Vietnam the US became more active in the Middle East, again protecting their oil-based interests.
US aid to Israel is mostly in the form of loan guarantees, not money, with the specific clauses that such loans have to be spent in the US. That means that your tax dollars are supporting your own compatriots, but the product is parked in my lawn.
We work very hard. Israel has the highest ration of published academic papers per capita in the world. We are the second country in the world in number of start-ups. Many technologies you use in your daily ignorant life were created, developed and perfected here.
johnrebAug 17, 2010Buried
Bigots like SoCalLongie can't be bothered with facts, foopirata. They get in the way of the hate.
jimrooneyAug 17, 2010Buried
Can't you just smell the election nearing?
The media has got the Hate Machine (TM) cranking up to full noise.
First the gays, then the Mexicans, now the Muslims... and it's only August!
Chicken Little's going to have an embolism before this one's done.
adinasAug 16, 2010Buried
Knowing who your enemies support could definitely help you know who you should support
tzvika613Aug 16, 2010Buried
"Sensitivity" and "feelings" may have no weight in determining whether there is a legal ground for preventing the building of the mosque / community center.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Lexington_Build_that_mosque_The_Economist
dalhectarAug 16, 2010Buried
"mall and transport hub"
In the name of historic preservation or memorial, I don't mind placing specific limits on commercial construction... like the Wal-Mart that was being proposed in VA that you could see from George Washington's residence at Mount Vernon as an example, or that in DC no building is allowed to be as tall as the Washington Monument.
But the families didn't object to only a small portion of the site being refurbished as a memorial while the rest gets redeveloped. It seems disingenuous that it's ok to redevelop most of the land, yet object to a Mosque that's not only not on the site, but also not in view of the memorial to potentially antagonize visitors.
To some degree, I think governments can place a limit on what goes around locations of national historical or cultural significance, but the limit has to be narrow (personally I go with the out of sight/out of mind as a litmus test). Cordoba House doesn't qualify.
gregloireAug 17, 2010Buried
Gotta love the logic of, "If people we don't like approve of something, then it must be bad."
mullinatorAug 17, 2010Buried
Hamas declares stealing to be wrong.
Americans declare national day of burglary.
foopirataAug 16, 2010Buried
Probably not, but perhaps people would start growing them in orchards in the gardens of all the churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia!
Oh. Wait....
foopirataAug 16, 2010Buried
I agree that people should be permitted to build places of worship freely. It is a right.
But I disagree that they don't have to take into account the personal feelings (or opinions, as the reader's cynicism level may require) of those that live in the place where the place of worship will be built. I'd be against a synagogue in the middle of a predominantly militant-extremist-Muslim neighborhood.
My comment about the oranges was a tongue-in-cheek way to bring out the fact that what they demand for themselves they're not ready to give to others. By this, I mean those that fund the dissemination of specific forms of Islam, like Saudi Arabia's extremist Wahabism.
foopirataAug 16, 2010Buried
I don't know if I agree with you here. After all, the people that did 9/11 weren't screaming "Great Prices Till Friday", they were screaming "Allahu Akbar". While I personally may think it is bad taste to redevelop the place so close to the memorial, sensibilities to that do vary. The Cordoba House perhaps by itself is not the problem. Perhaps the problem of those opposing it is to have a central place with an augmented flux of Muslims coming so close to the nexus of America's feelings about Islam-motivated extremism.
I hope you see what I mean, I find it difficult to express.
foopirataAug 17, 2010Buried
a) nobody "gave" us a country - we were here, and since then we have worked very hard to keep it.
b) does the fact she is called "israeligirl" change anything about the article in question? Isn't there a debate going on about this project, and isn't this valid news about it?
It seems that someone here is trying to push hatred and discrimination - and it is not she.
dreadpirateAug 17, 2010Buried
I see we have yet another user who cannot debate the issues, and instead has to attack the submitter. How pathetic.
roboleninAug 17, 2010Buried
Extremists: f**king it up for Muslim moderates since 2001.