Giuliani: If dialogue and sensitivity are the goals, don’t build the mosque on Ground Zero

posted at 10:55 am on August 19, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Rudy Giuliani took on Matt Lauer, his successor as Mayor, and apparently Nancy Pelosi’s thought police to argue against the building of the Ground Zero mosque. Giuliani acknowledged, as most of the project’s opponents do, that the owners of the property have a right to build anything within the zoning regulations at the site. Giuliani doesn’t call for government intervention, either. But he calls for the same kind of sensitivity that the Pope showed in pushing to move a convent in the vicinity of Auschwitz to a less provocative location as a way to foster actual healing, dialogue, and understanding:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Giuliani wonders whether Rauf can even get the money necessary to move forward with the project. The imam will travel abroad soon, on the State Department’s dime, but may not find receptive audiences. One of the most influential institutions in Sunni Islam, Egypt’s Al Azhar, considers the entire idea a Zionist plot to tie Islam to 9/11, according to Pajamas Media (via Instapundit):

A number of Al Azhar ulema expressed their opposition to building a mosque near [where] the events of September 11 [occurred], convinced that it is “a conspiracy to confirm a clear connection between the strikes of September [11] and Islam.” Dr. ‘Abd al-Mu‘ti Bayumi, a member of the Islamic Research Academy [of Al Azhar] told Al Masry Al Youm that he rejects the building of any mosque in this area [Ground Zero], because the “devious mentality” desires to connect these events [of 9/11] with Islam, though he maintains that Islam is innocent of this accusation. Instead, it is a “Zionist conspiracy,” which many are making use of to harm the religion. Likewise, Dr. Amna Nazir, professor of doctrine and philosophy at Al Azhar, expressed her rejection that a mosque be built near the World Trade Center, saying: “Building a mosque on this rubble indicates bad intention — even if we wished to shut our eyes, close our minds, and insist on good will. I hope it is a sincere step, and not a new conspiracy against Islam and Muslims.”

Raymond Ibrahim wonders in his column:

Now, here’s the question: if Al Azhar scholars are fully aware of how detrimental the erection of a 9/11 mosque can be, why are American Muslims (such as of the Cordoba Initiative) still relentlessly pursuing it?

The motivation may wind up being secondary to means. If Rauf can’t raise $100 million, the project’s not going anywhere, regardless of the motives behind it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Why is it so hard for you to see what’s right in front of your face?

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM

I guess you and your wife and all the people you have influence on need to have about 6 or 8 kids each to change the dynamics…..
Everyone on the internet has an opinion – a significantly smaller number have informed opinions. You seem comfortable staying in the larger group.

Bradky on August 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Esthier, I’m waiting for the link. I’ve done a search for such a quote and can’t find it. Please provide it.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Bradky on August 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Bradky, considering you hurl out all sorts of assertions while providing no logically connected evidence, it might be advisable for you to refrain from denigrating others’ opinions as ill-informed.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Are you really so naive? What possible good does that serve for national interests and security by telling the world 20% are not welcome because of their ideology? Do you think China and Russia wouldn’t jump right in to profess their support for their religious freedom and in turn build strong alliances with those countries.

Bradky on August 19, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Naïve, cute. Again, because things don’t seem to take with you: not once did I say anything regarding the relative merits or folly of such a policy. I simply pointed out that, contrary to your claim, such a policy would not restrict the religios freedom of Americans. How about conceding this very obvious point instead of flailing your arms and stuffing my mouth with words that aren’t mine.

Sharke on August 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I guess you and your wife and all the people you have influence on need to have about 6 or 8 kids each to change the dynamics…..
Everyone on the internet has an opinion – a significantly smaller number have informed opinions. You seem comfortable staying in the larger group.

Bradky on August 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Snarky replies don’t get you extra brownie points. It’s a serious subject, and very serious concern that you and others just seem to blow off as you await the consequences of non-action.

I don’t know if you really don’t care, or are just afraid to lose your good standing with the leftist utopians. It isn’t just America, it’s western civilization. Islam is expanding at exponential rates and China is exerting it’s dominance as well. If you hate western civilization, well, I guess I can see where you’re coming from. If you don’t, then it’s time you shed your pseudo-enlightenment and face the problem squarely.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Sharke on August 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM

It gets increasingly difficult to believe that he and Esthier are simply unable to comprehend these distinctions. The continual putting words into others’ mouths is a red flag.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:08 PM

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Darwin, I love you (in a platonic, Mr. DrMagnolias would agree kind of way).

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Nicely put.

kingsjester on August 19, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Now, the claim that they chose the building specifically because it was hit by debris from one of the planes… that a black or white thing. You can show proof of that or not.

Sure, but I’ve seen noting from you that would suggest it would make a difference even if true. So how is my return on investment any better than yours?

Also, you seem to not have a problem with most Muslims. Well, Sharia law applies to all of Islam. And Rauf in fact has a very liberal and progressive (not even moderate) view of sharia law.

Tom_Shipley on August 19, 2010 at 2:17 PM

It doesn’t have to, or at least if it’s going to, it could be a bit less misogynist, so that women aren’t the only uncovered meat of concern. Rauf addressed none of that.

I have a serious love for true moderate Muslims who want real reform of Islam. To call this man one is to slander the others.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Darwin, I love you (in a platonic, Mr. DrMagnolias would agree kind of way).

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Awww …

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Esthier, please provide a link for the quote you posted an hour ago. I have searched the site and can’t find such a conversation.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Most members of the Soviet Marxist parties were peaceful and law abiding.

Which is why banning it and creating the House of UnAmerican Activities was wrong.

Most members of the KKK were peaceful and law abiding.

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 2:21 PM

I’m not convinced of this, but again, we don’t ban the KKK.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:14 PM

I have a serious love for true moderate Muslims who want real reform of Islam. To call this man one is to slander the others.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:12 PM

I used to chat with Muslim in Europe. He was level headed and well read, especially the Bible. But he did have a big chip on his shoulder and I never could figure out why. I tried. I quit after he let some other Muslims on his site who couldn’t stop bashing me, and everything else non-Islamic.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:17 PM

In fairness doesn’t the christian doctrine essentially want the same thing. Why don’t you oppose that?

Bradky on August 19, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Honestly?

No.

The message of Christianity is love and forgiveness. Seek God’s love and you will be redeemed by grace through Jesus Christ.

The message of Islam is submission. If you submit to the will of Allah, you will be granted his peace.

Sorry, but that is a HUGE difference.

Typhoon on August 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Now Tom, that’s just assinine and you know it. There are hundreds of mosques in this country and several dozen in NYC. You just don’t seem capable of grasping the point here. It’s not about THE right to do something, it’s about whether it IS right to do something.

Willie on August 19, 2010 at 2:28 PM

It’s not asinine. It’s what some people are actually proposing. It’s a shame, because it derails good arguments, but it’s unfortunately a fact.

Not that I agree with banning Muslims from immigrating here, but how exactly would that be restricting the religious freedoms of Americans? They aren’t Americans until they’ve immigrated and gotten their citizenship. Restricting the freedom of certain groups to immigrate here it may be, but restricting the religious freedom of existing Americans it aint.

Sharke on August 19, 2010 at 2:31 PM

It would change who could sponsor immigration and it would greatly impact the ability of Muslim Americans, including Americans who convert to Islam from now on, to bring over loved-ones.

And it would stigmatize the entire religion itself, which is not an endorsement or a prohibition on Islam, but it would certainly discourage people from becoming Muslim.

If you have your way they will be.

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 2:32 PM

And if you have your way, they’ll have legal precedent.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Please direct me to that quote and conversation (a link). And please explain to me how that comment is “wanting to attack all Muslims.”

You can’t use Cntr+F and find it yourself?

I didn’t make the comment. If you think I’ve misrepresented it, then please use your rights as an American to show me my error.

I have felt no desire to clarify an argument I have never made. I sincerely hope this is your inability to comprehend what is said, and not malicious intent. Considering how often you put words in other people’s mouths and argue fallaciously, it is hard to know.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 2:34 PM

How often I do that? OK… I’m just stupid. If that makes you feel better, you should also decide I’m no longer worth your time on this issue.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Esthier, for the fourth time, the link, please. Otherwise, I’m beginning to get suspicious that you made up the conversation, or are leaving out important context.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM

It would change who could sponsor immigration and it would greatly impact the ability of Muslim Americans, including Americans who convert to Islam from now on, to bring over loved-ones.

And it would stigmatize the entire religion itself, which is not an endorsement or a prohibition on Islam, but it would certainly discourage people from becoming Muslim.

And it would stigmatize the entire religion itself, which is not an endorsement or a prohibition on Islam, but it would certainly discourage people from becoming Muslim.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM

None of which is the same as “restricting religious freedom.”

Sharke on August 19, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Nice try. You made the assertion, and provided a quote without a link. I have done the search, and simply can’t find it. It is certainly necessary for context. The burden of support is on the person who makes the assertion.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM

If you really believe that what more can I say. Gulf 1 was a war and not a nation building exercise in every aspect. Gulf 2 was approached very differently.

Bradky on August 19, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Eh, I somewhat agree. It evolved into that as time went on, but that was never the original reason presented for going to war.

That said, those who do not believe Muslims are compatible with democracy couldn’t have supported the Iraq War much more than a few years. By the time Saddam was hung, it was nothing but nation building.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Oh, and incidentally, saying that Islam is a problem is not the same as “wanting to attack all Muslims.” Apparently, distinctions are not your strong suit.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Esthier, for the fourth time, the link, please. Otherwise, I’m beginning to get suspicious that you made up the conversation, or are leaving out important context.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Fourth? Seriously, Doc, if you can’t use a search function, I’m not going to baby you. I used a direct quote that was on the exact same page as that conversation.

I don’t care if you think I made it up. It’s not my fault you can’t remember what you typed and can’t use a computer’s most basic functions.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:26 PM

That said, those who do not believe Muslims are compatible with democracy couldn’t have supported the Iraq War much more than a few years. By the time Saddam was hung, it was nothing but nation building.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Why? Democracy itself doesn’t have to represent western ideals.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:14 PM

You claimed that most Muslims are peaceful and that doesn’t address the problem. Most anyone in a group is peaceful. Only a few will take action from any group. How exactly do you deal with a religion that supports terrorism the way Islam does by making the Jihad a religious duty?

It will never stop!

Look around the world and show me where this moderate Islam you keep talking about can be found? They are moderate when they lack the numbers to have their will enforced such as is true in the US today.

Where is the moderate Islam when they have the upper hand?

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Considering you allegedly found it less than an hour ago, it should be easy for you. What is “that conversation” that you are referring to? Do you realize how long I’ve been on HA? There have been many conversations. I have done the search more than once–surely you must know that results don’t always just pop up. One of the basics is to provide links when you quote, rather than posting something out of context and then demanding that someone else find the context.

The burden of support for your argument is not on me. The fact that you could not comprehend a statement, and took it where it so obviously did not go, does not place the burden on me. Seriously, Esthier, a brief course on the rules of debate would be helpful to you, and would make you someone a bit easier to take seriously.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM

I used to chat with Muslim in Europe. He was level headed and well read, especially the Bible. But he did have a big chip on his shoulder and I never could figure out why. I tried. I quit after he let some other Muslims on his site who couldn’t stop bashing me, and everything else non-Islamic.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:17 PM

I’m not sure what to make of this anecdote.

None of which is the same as “restricting religious freedom.”

Sharke on August 19, 2010 at 3:22 PM

I’m sure you’d be saying the same if we were banning Christians.

Oh, and incidentally, saying that Islam is a problem is not the same as “wanting to attack all Muslims.” Apparently, distinctions are not your strong suit.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Like I said, feel free to clarify.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM

OK, Doc, you can’t search, so let me provide the entire discussion (even though it’s already here) on this page.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 1:16 PM:
I should not have stopped there. Islam is not simply a religion. Until people recognize that it is an entire ideology with legal, political, and religious ramifications, they will not recognize its threat to Western civilization and individual liberty.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 1:22 PM:
Yes, and when they do, we will actually be at war with Islam. Crusades worked so well last time, didn’t they?

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 1:22 PM

to be continued due to excessive linking…

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM

How can one possibly clarify anything so abundantly clear in the first place? You are either fundamentally dishonest, or so exceedingly obtuse that the most basic distinctions are lost on you.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Esthier, those are not links. Those are quotes. More than an hour ago, you posted a quote about food poisoning, without a link. I’d like the link so I can see the conversation. A link for a quote you provide is a basic courtesy on the Internet.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:38 PM

I’m not sure what to make of this anecdote.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Me either. I was trying to comprehend 9-11 at the time and learning whatever I could about islam.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Okay, Esthier, I apologize–my screen is not showing the linkage for your 3:35 post; however, you did not provide a link for the food poisoning quote, which is the issue at hand.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:39 PM

So then your next reply (which was actually to a different comment of mine) is:

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 1:29 PM:
Perhaps you should stop worrying about whether someone is going to call you a name, and start worrying about the ramifications of allowing people to wage a stealth war against liberty.

To which I responded:

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 1:39 PM:
Cause an overt war is that much easier?

Please explain what you actually mean if not a war on all Muslims. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but you did specifically reference war. Maybe you could be more clear?

Oh, and this reminds me of an comment I missed earlier.

Bowing down to Islamists and allowing them to build their victory mosque on GZ will make them feel, not weaker, but stronger and bolder. It will give them hope that needs to be destroyed.

You have it completely backwards. Disallowing the victory mosque will make them weaker, not stronger. They’ll try to spin it, but it’ll only be spin.

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM

I don’t support the mosque at all. It shouldn’t be built. If Rauf was a moderate interested in dialogue, he wouldn’t want it built there either. I’ve said this multiple times.

I do, however, support the religious freedoms this country currently has and want to maintain them.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Okay, Esthier, I apologize–my screen is not showing the linkage for your 3:35 post; however, you did not provide a link for the food poisoning quote, which is the issue at hand.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:39 PM

I thought the issue was whether or not you wanted war with Islam, not specifically that quote.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Please explain what you actually mean if not a war on all Muslims. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but you did specifically reference war. Maybe you could be more clear?

I did reference war–that Muslims are engaging in a war with the West. Sometimes it is overt, such as the 9/11 attacks, and sometimes it is by stealth, such as the creeping sharia we see all over Europe. I thought I was clear in stating that I hate war, but at least when one engages in overt war they are not pretending it isn’t happening. Saying so is a philosophical point, not a call to arms suggesting we attack Muslims.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:42 PM

My request for the food poisoning quote was because you used it to support your assertion that I wanted to attack all Muslims. I cannot see how you could draw that conclusion from what I said.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM

I’ve found the quote, and it’s not yours. I apologize for saying it was, but after looking through that thread I now remember why I thought it was. You were incensed that I’d said we were the ones picking the fight with Islam, which was something I’d said in response to someone else.

When you asked me about that, I thought you had been the person I was responding to and then went for that comment instead of one of yours.

You responded to my comment here: Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 1:35 PM, which lead me to believe that you were the person I was quoting there.

That’s why I went for Floating’s comment there instead of picking one of yours. Had I realized who I was talking to, I would have picked the quotes I just threw up there.

I might still have used that quote, because that is the quote that warranted my response of picking a fight with Islam, but I wouldn’t have said it was yours.

So sorry about that. Hope everyone’s words are the only ones in their mouths now.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:42 PM

It’s also important to be consistent in our terms. Islam is the ideology; Muslims are the human beings who hold it. Human beings fight wars over ideologies, but their are fighting other human beings.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Saying so is a philosophical point, not a call to arms suggesting we attack Muslims.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:46 PM

That wasn’t the way I took your comments, especially not considering the conversation had turned to banning all Muslims from immigrating here.

I wasn’t trying to put those words in your mouth. That’s simply what I thought you were saying. I can’t read your mind. It would be very convenient, but if I could, I’d use that power to kill Bin Laden and his followers. Then I’d probably go after people like Rosie and Garafalo. Either way, I wouldn’t use it here.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Got it. I got pretty hot under the collar when I could not remember saying something and it seemed you were refusing to “play fair.” I’m sorry if I said things that hurt your feelings.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:52 PM

It’s also important to be consistent in our terms. Islam is the ideology; Muslims are the human beings who hold it. Human beings fight wars over ideologies, but their are fighting other human beings.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:49 PM

If you were to tell me that you’re at war with Christianity, I’d tell you that you are at war with me. You can’t separate the two.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:51 PM

I do believe in banning all Muslim immigration. It is an ideology that is antithetical to Western civilization, to our Constitution, and to liberty. I will never back down from that position.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM

I’m curious. How do you propose we deal with the same Muslim expansionism here that’s occurred in Europe?

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Got it. I got pretty hot under the collar when I could not remember saying something and it seemed you were refusing to “play fair.” I’m sorry if I said things that hurt your feelings.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:52 PM

You didn’t because I’m used to these discussions being heated, but I appreciate the apology. If you remember this later on and see me doing something similar, please just let me know. I promise it’s not my intention to twist someone’s words.

I care more about the conversation than proving someone wrong. I hope that shows, but I get that it doesn’t always.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:56 PM

If you were to tell me that you’re at war with Christianity, I’d tell you that you are at war with me. You can’t separate the two.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Yet you’re asking us to separate Muslims from Islam, when it is Islam itself that is driving today’s events.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM

If you were to tell me that you’re at war with Christianity, I’d tell you that you are at war with me. You can’t separate the two.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Islam does exactly that!

Islam says that it is at war with all non-Muslims and their history suggests they mean it.

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM

I’m sure you’d be saying the same if we were banning Christians.

Indeed I would, because stopping Christians from immigrating would not be “restricting religious freedom” either. I hate to be pedantic.

Sharke on August 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM

If Rauf can’t raise $100 million, the project’s not going anywhere

I’m sure Obama will be happy to fund raise for it. It’s what America’s all about. Let him be clear. It will be the top priority of his administration. There are those who would stop his efforts after they drove the country into the ditch but he’s got it in “D” and he will not let the Party of No stop his raising the funds. So Obama will get right to it just as soon as this year’s 6th vacation is over.

chickasaw42 on August 19, 2010 at 4:07 PM

I do believe in banning all Muslim immigration. It is an ideology that is antithetical to Western civilization, to our Constitution, and to liberty. I will never back down from that position.

DrMagnolias on August 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM

And obviously I can’t make you. I vehemently disagree and see it as a useless encroachment on our freedoms that we’d never accept with any other religion. Considering the party we like won’t always be in power, it’s also much more dangerous of a precedent than I think any realize.

But again, I can’t change your mind.

I’m curious. How do you propose we deal with the same Muslim expansionism here that’s occurred in Europe?

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:55 PM

I’d first not want to treat this country as though we are Europe, and I’d secondly want to do away with the similarities we do have that encourage that kind of expansion. Welfare and policies that elevate minorities to some protected class are severely contributing to the problem.

Likewise, allowing treason and the encouragement of treason on their own soil is another part of the problem.

There are really simple things we can do to not be as stupid as they are that have nothing to do with prohibiting immigration based on religion.

Turn our Muslims into complete allies, and you help build a consensus among free Muslims who do not have to be as courageous to speak out as their brothers and sisters across the sea, and just imagine what would happen. Imagine if we can use their own religion against them.

That will do so much more than any missile ever could.

Believe it or not, but I do understand the threat many Muslims pose. As a woman, I feel it more than anything, and my heart hurts for the women who have to live under such oppression. I want to save them and help them change things, because I fully believe they have a power there that the rest of us do not.

I also sincerely believe that we can never win this if we try to fight them in battle.

It’s the same with this stupid mosque debate. If we let them tell us that this is about whether or not the building has a right to be there, then we won’t likely win. But if we move the battle to whether or not it should be built, whether or not sensitivities should be considered here, they don’t have a leg to stand on whatsoever.

If you want to win, regardless of the costs, then you and I agree. I’m merely proposing what I see as our best possible hope, especially (but not limited to) in our current political climate.

Our people don’t have the stomach for an all out war against Muslims, but they’re far more likely to agree that Muslims who don’t want to stone women or force them to wear “modest” clothing (i.e., not Rauf) are worth listening to and being given deference. We out number these cave-dwelling pieces of excrement, but they are much more apt at propaganda. Our best hope is taking that away.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Yet you’re asking us to separate Muslims from Islam, when it is Islam itself that is driving today’s events.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM

No, I’m asking you to do the opposite actually.

Islam says that it is at war with all non-Muslims and their history suggests they mean it.

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Yes, a whole maybe 10% of them mean it. So let’s go after all 100%, shall we?

Indeed I would, because stopping Christians from immigrating would not be “restricting religious freedom” either. I hate to be pedantic.

Sharke on August 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM

No, it would just mean that in order to sponsor my family in England, I’d have to hide my religious beliefs. Same if I had a spouse overseas. But of course that’s not actually restricting my beliefs.

Though really, there’s no such thing as restricting my beliefs if you want to be technical. Making Christianity illegal and using Christians as human torches didn’t stop the early Christians from believing either. Nothing can if you actually believe.

Doesn’t mean our laws work that way. If you have to pretend to not be a Christian in order to sponsor friends and family, then the government is prohibiting the free exercise of your religion. Plain and simple.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 4:15 PM

I also sincerely believe that we can never win this if we try to fight them in battle.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 4:07 PM

What? That’s what they believe. That’s why they’re conquering the west through massive immigration and Islamic “creep”. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but they don’t compromise.

The easiest way to win, is also the simplest. Have enough guts to tell them enough is enough. Stop any future immigration, and insist that Muslims here have the right to practice their religion, but they must abide by our laws. The rights and sensibilities of others must be respected … no exceptions.

Anyone with any connection to terrorists or radicals is either deported or kept close watch on. Any mosque found to be preaching radicalism is shut down.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 4:18 PM

What? That’s what they believe. That’s why they’re conquering the west through massive immigration and Islamic “creep”. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but they don’t compromise.

You’re talking about them as though they are one monolith, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The rights and sensibilities of others must be respected … no exceptions.

Others in this case meaning everyone but Muslims.

Anyone with any connection to terrorists or radicals is either deported or kept close watch on. Any mosque found to be preaching radicalism is shut down.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 4:18 PM

That should be a no brainer.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Yes, a whole maybe 10% of them mean it. So let’s go after all 100%, shall we?

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 4:15 PM

See, this is where your problem is. In any totalitarian system, the actual number of totalitarians is small … but they exert enough control over the rest to get them to obey.

Ever read “When they were free” by Mayer? It details the lives of 10 Germans before, during and after Hitler. They were all good people, well, maybe 9 of the ten, but they followed Hitler … some willingly at first, most reluctantly, but they followed … and some did bad things, even though essentially they were good people.

The Soviet Union was the same. Were all Soviets bad? No. Could they be forced to do horrible things by a small minority? Yes.

Islam is the same.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Others in this case meaning everyone but Muslims.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 4:24 PM

See, you do have a habit of inserting words in peoples mouths. Did I say that? Did I even imply that?

All it takes is for good people of all persuasions to come together to deal with the bad people. Until we can get the good people of Islam to come together with everyone else, certain measures will have to be taken.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 4:28 PM

See, this is where your problem is. In any totalitarian system, the actual number of totalitarians is small … but they exert enough control over the rest to get them to obey.

Except this isn’t a totalitarian system. That’s your problem. There are many totalitarian countries where Islam reigns, but that’s not the same.

If you want to fight those countries and ban people from those countries from immigrating, then I’m with you.

Ever read “When they were free” by Mayer? It details the lives of 10 Germans before, during and after Hitler. They were all good people, well, maybe 9 of the ten, but they followed Hitler … some willingly at first, most reluctantly, but they followed … and some did bad things, even though essentially they were good people.

No, but I’d rather not go Godwin on all Muslims. They’re not even taking orders, let alone just following them.

The Soviet Union was the same. Were all Soviets bad? No. Could they be forced to do horrible things by a small minority? Yes.

Sure, but does that mean it was right to ask actors if they supported communism and blacklist them if they did? Despite what others have said, McCarthy didn’t go that far and actually stuck with the real threats and got real results.

See, you do have a habit of inserting words in peoples mouths. Did I say that? Did I even imply that?

Feel free to explain what you meant. I don’t know how else to read you. That is my honest reading of what you said. I would think you’d rather I was straight with you.

If you’re telling me that Muslims cannot continue to immigrate into this country, meaning their own friends and relatives are banned, how are you considering their sensibilities whatsoever?

All it takes is for good people of all persuasions to come together to deal with the bad people. Until we can get the good people of Islam to come together with everyone else, certain measures will have to be taken.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 4:28 PM

How the hell do you expect them to come together when you’re proposing demonizing every last one of them as unfit to enter the country? You’re essentially leaving them to fend for themselves (this includes plenty of people who have risked their lives to support us in Iraq and Afghanistan), which is much more difficult if they don’t start “following orders” and getting on board with the evil among them.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 4:37 PM

How the hell do you expect them to come together when you’re proposing demonizing every last one of them as unfit to enter the country?

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Good Lord. I give up. You want your cake and eat it too.

Priority number one is the United States and it’s citizens. There’s no constitutional provision that demands we let anyone in. In fact, we need to close the borders period … no immigration for 5-10 yrs … with few exceptions, just to deal with the mess with already have.

Have you led a sheltered life or something? Because you know sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do … regardless.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 4:51 PM

I’m not convinced of this, but again, we don’t ban the KKK.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 3:14 PM

We would stop them from building a large, metallic perpetually burning cross in the middle of a black neighborhood they burned down.

You know it’s true.

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 5:25 PM

…Even if they didn’t burn it down!

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Priority number one is the United States and it’s citizens.

I get that you don’t realize this, but you and I agree on this part. I’m proposing what I believe best accomplishes that.

In fact, we need to close the borders period … no immigration for 5-10 yrs … with few exceptions, just to deal with the mess with already have.

That’s a completely different issue than only not letting Muslims in.

Have you led a sheltered life or something? Because you know sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do … regardless.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 4:51 PM

I agree with that. That’s what I’m proposing. Doing what you gotta do regardless.

We would stop them from building a large, metallic perpetually burning cross in the middle of a black neighborhood they burned down.

You know it’s true.

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Legally it’s obviously a bit easier to argue that a burning cross can’t be left up in public anyway, but for you to even make this argument against me just shows that you have no idea that I’m against this mosque and have said so multiple times.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 5:40 PM

There’s nothing wrong with my argument except that it shatters your notion that we’re setting a dangerous precedent if we don’t allow a mosque at GZ. In fact it’s quite the opposite. If we have allow them to build a victory mosque then we have to allow the KKK to build a big burning cross in the middle of a black neighborhood they burned down.

Do you want that? Because that’s how this works. Not that, necessarily, but once the precedent is set then every hate group out there is going to use it to spread their hate.

I don’t want to live in that kind of world.

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 5:44 PM

…Not that specifically, necessarily,

FIFM

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 5:46 PM

There’s nothing wrong with my argument except that it shatters your notion that we’re setting a dangerous precedent if we don’t allow a mosque at GZ.

Float, if you read nothing else, please read this. THAT IS NOT MY NOTION. NOT AT ALL.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I don’t want to live in a world where mosques are built on Ground Zero.

I don’t want to live in a world where the KKK can erect a large perpetually burning cross in the middle of a black neighborhood. “Hey, it’s their 1st amendment right!”, we’re told. I call BS!

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Float, if you read nothing else, please read this. THAT IS NOT MY NOTION. NOT AT ALL.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Then you support stopping the victory mosque at GZ, whether they like it or not?

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Then you support stopping the victory mosque at GZ, whether they like it or not?

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 5:50 PM

I don’t support making up laws to stop it, but I do think the idea that we have to let this happen is stupid.

And I do also think that by moving the conversation from whether or not they have the legal right to build it from whether or not they are morally right to do so is a very stupid idea as well.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 5:53 PM

We’re not so far apart.

Still, give some though to my comment about risk analysis. The entire point of the immigration process is to control risk. Otherwise we wouldn’t need a process.

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Yes, a whole maybe 10% of them mean it. So let’s go after all 100%, shall we?

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 4:15 PM

No, actually 100% of Islam is that way. Some Muslims don’t live up to the standards demanded of them.

You talk about Muslims not being a monolithic group.

Well who is?
No human group can meet your lofty standards.

According to that logic you will never fight for what you believe because your enemy isn’t a raving zombie horde.

If they show up on the battlefield you are fine with letting the military fight I presume. If they fight in any other way you fold like a cheap suit?

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 6:09 PM

We’re not so far apart.

Good to know.

Still, give some though to my comment about risk analysis. The entire point of the immigration process is to control risk. Otherwise we wouldn’t need a process.

FloatingRock on August 19, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Sure, and I would completely support being overly discerning with applicants from Muslim ruled countries, especially those who support terror. In fact, from those countries, I’d probably only want those Muslims who have risked their lives to help us. It’s not as though we have a shortage of people coming into this country.

I just don’t agree with a blanket ban on Muslims. Where we might disagree is where I see the moderates as invaluable to us winning this ideological battle.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 6:14 PM

No, actually 100% of Islam is that way. Some Muslims don’t live up to the standards demanded of them.

Now we’re arguing semantics. You’re telling me they’re not following their religion, but they’ll tell you they are Muslim and will see any attack on their faith as an attack on them, just as I would see any attack on Christianity as an attack on me.

My point is, whether you’re right or wrong, it’s those moderates who can change Islam and ensure that only 10% of those who call themselves Muslim will be a problem for us. If you want to go after Islam itself, you will change that to 100% of those who call themselves Muslims.

Well who is?
No human group can meet your lofty standards.

Lofty standards? I’m not calling a monolith a virtue. I don’t even get your point here.

According to that logic you will never fight for what you believe because your enemy isn’t a raving zombie horde.

Not at all. There’s no logic there whatsoever. I’m only saying that if only 10% of a given population is a problem, then I’m only going to go after them rather than give that other 90% reason to believe that I’m their enemy.

If they show up on the battlefield you are fine with letting the military fight I presume. If they fight in any other way you fold like a cheap suit?

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Nothing cheap about me. Anyone who wants a fight will get one. But I’m not going to try and fight those who don’t want one. Cause I can count, and they outnumber us, dramatically. It’s hard enough fighting that 10%.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 6:19 PM

I agree with that. That’s what I’m proposing. Doing what you gotta do regardless.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Ok, good back and forth. Thanks.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Ok, good back and forth. Thanks.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Glad we can be civil on this. I appreciate it, darwin.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Now we’re arguing semantics. You’re telling me they’re not following their religion, but they’ll tell you they are Muslim and will see any attack on their faith as an attack on them, just as I would see any attack on Christianity as an attack on me.

My point is, whether you’re right or wrong, it’s those moderates who can change Islam and ensure that only 10% of those who call themselves Muslim will be a problem for us. If you want to go after Islam itself, you will change that to 100% of those who call themselves Muslims.

Where are those 90% in the Muslim nations?

WHERE ARE THEY?

If what you say is even close to true you would have produced those examples you’ve been asked about?

You have a desperate need to believe what you are saying and your last statement is telling.

Cause I can count, and they outnumber us, dramatically. It’s hard enough fighting that 10%.

I have heard you should never take council of your fears and I would forward the same advice to you.

You are afraid it is a lot more than 10% as any poll regarding Sharia law, or sympathy for terrorism has shown.

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 6:38 PM

This Cordoba Center is NOT AT GROUND ZERO. It’s not adjacent to it. It’s two city blocks away, with bars and porn shops in between them. The center/mosque is not altering Ground Zero.

That’s a huge difference in my eyes.

Tom_Shipley on August 19, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Standard Leftist talking points noted! But you’re being intellectually dishonest if you continue to refuse to admit that a mosque is part of the Cordoba Center, especially since they say there will be one there on their own web page.

I just finally saw an accurate graphic showing the proximity of the WTC towers to the proposed mosque. It’s too close.

Del Dolemonte on August 19, 2010 at 7:01 PM

I bet you read Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone” and it has you all wee weed up about the Islamists out populating the west. The stats all seem to be legit but his leap in interpretation is laughable.

Try reading “The next 100 Million” by Kotkin and you will have a much more optimistic view of where the country is headed, due in large part to America’s open minded view toward diversity.

Bradky on August 19, 2010 at 1:47 PM

LOL, Kotkin, he says.

He’s a Berkeley dropout. How can a dropout be employed as a “scholar”?

Del Dolemonte on August 19, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Where are those 90% in the Muslim nations?

WHERE ARE THEY?

For one, they’re not all in Muslims nations, and for another plenty of the Muslim nations while not moderate religiously, aren’t actively looking for a fight. If they were, we wouldn’t still be relying on an all volunteer military.

I have heard you should never take council of your fears and I would forward the same advice to you.

There’s a difference between accepting reality and ignoring it. I’m not afraid of this enemy. I’m simply acknowledging reality, which is that it’s completely illogical to take on an enemy you can’t easily defeat (Muslims account for somewhere near one sixth of the population of the world) when you could instead utilize the bulk of them to form a coalition against the violent minority.

By using their own weapons against them, you get a double advantage, because in attacking them with their weapons, you are also disarming them, saving countless lives in the process. Just because we’re fighting doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be smart about it.

You are afraid it is a lot more than 10% as any poll regarding Sharia law, or sympathy for terrorism has shown.

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 6:38 PM

The worst polls in theocratic societies still put those opinions in the minority.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 7:43 PM

You are afraid it is a lot more than 10% as any poll regarding Sharia law, or sympathy for terrorism has shown.

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 6:38 PM

The worst polls in theocratic societies still put those opinions in the minority.

Esthier on August 19, 2010 at 7:43 PM

On Question of Implementing strict Sharia law throughout Pakistan
– 36.8 Percent – Very Important
– 37.9 Percent – Somewhat Important
– Total: 74.7 Percent

June 2008 Pakistan

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/PakistanPollReportJune08.pdf
– 74.7 percent think “implementing strict Sharia law throughout Pakistan” important for Pakistan govt (Q8g, page 44)
– 73.7 percent oppose U.S. military action against Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan (Q11c, page 52)
– 69 percent oppose U.S. military working with Pakistan military against Taliban and Al-Qaeda (Q11b, page 52)
– 51.8 percent view U.S. to blame for violence in Pakistan today (Q14, page 52)
– 58.2 percent favor negotiations with Taliban (Q15c, page 63)
– 49.6 percent favor negotiations with Al-Qaeda and Uzbek fighters (Q15a, page 63)
– 56.5 percent agree with Al Qaeda’s goals (Q16a, page 64)
– 79.5 percent view Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s goals are “to stand up to America” (Q29a1, page 75)
– 57.1 percent agreed with Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s goals “to stand up to America” (Q29a2, page 75)

In Egypt, 64% think Sharia must be the only source of legislation

Regarding Sharia…
Ninety-seven percent of Egyptians, 76% of Iranians, and 69% of Turks in this group associate it with justice for women. Strong majorities in Iran (80%), Egypt (96%), and Turkey (63%) also think of Sharia as promoting a fair justice system.

40% of British Muslims want Sharia Law
Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be “punished by death.

14% of British Muslims thought it was right for protesters in Muslim countries to attack Danish embassies and 12% thought it was right for “demonstrators to carry placards calling for the killing of those who insult Islam”. 13% said it was right “to exercise violence against those who are deemed by religious leaders to have insulted them”.

n a survey for Britain’s Channel 4 this year, no less than 22% of Muslims agreed with the proposition that the subway bombings were justified because of “British support for the war on terror.” Those under 24 were twice as likely to excuse the attacks as those over 45. A recent Pew study found that 15% of British Muslims identify themselves with fundamentalists. And among those British Muslims surveyed, a remarkable 81%–a percentage higher than that for Muslims not just in France and Germany but also in Egypt and Jordan–said they thought of themselves as Muslims first and citizens of their native country second.

In Britain…
The research found that a third of Muslim students supported the creation of a world-wide caliphate or Islamic state.

Substantial numbers also favor attacks on US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the Persian Gulf. Across the four countries polled approximately half support such attacks in each location, while three in ten are opposed. But there is substantial variation between countries: Support is strongest in Egypt, where at least eight in ten approve of attacking US troops in the region. A majority of Moroccans also support targeting US forces, whether stationed in the Persian Gulf (52%) or fighting in Iraq (68%). Pakistanis are divided about attacks on the American military, many do not answer or express mixed feelings, while Indonesians oppose them.

Most significantly, large majorities approve of many of al-Qaeda’s principal goals. Large majorities in all countries (average 70 percent or higher) support such goals as: “stand up to Americans and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people,” “push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries,” and “pressure the United States to not favor Israel.”

Equally large majorities agree with goals that involve expanding the role of Islam in their society. On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.” Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.”

sharrukin on August 19, 2010 at 8:28 PM

It’s a serious subject, and very serious concern that you and others just seem to blow off as you await the consequences of non-action.

I don’t know if you really don’t care, or are just afraid to lose your good standing with the leftist utopians. It isn’t just America, it’s western civilization. Islam is expanding at exponential rates and China is exerting it’s dominance as well. If you hate western civilization, well, I guess I can see where you’re coming from. If you don’t, then it’s time you shed your pseudo-enlightenment and face the problem squarely.

darwin on August 19, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I provided you a suggested action – have triple the number of kids the average couple have and “exponentially” expand that to your peers and followers.
The alternative to you is to either ban or kill the ones you are afraid of. If that is your bag too bad. I do feel sorry for people afraid of higher birth rates of other demographics.
My guess is you have overdosed on Glen Beck….

Bradky on August 19, 2010 at 11:20 PM

LOL, Kotkin, he says.

He’s a Berkeley dropout. How can a dropout be employed as a “scholar”?

Del Dolemonte on August 19, 2010 at 7:12 PM

What books have you read on the subject?

Bradky on August 19, 2010 at 11:22 PM

That’s why I voted for Rudy in the primaries… Common sense and direct to the point style.

RalphyBoy on August 21, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3