(Jack Lee)
SOAPS writes to PS,
My reply:
Soaps, that’s a very good point and it brings up a stunning hypocrisy. Muslims that think its okay to erect a Mosque near ground zero and do so with great encouragement from our President to New York’s Mayor. They say they are just defending freedom of religion, as defined in the Constitution and they shame anyone who may disagree; all threats be damned. They’re defending their rights!
But, when free speech goes against something offensive in the Islamic world, like this dumb book burning, we’re told to back off this could cause trouble and harm our troops? I still can’t believe that President Obama actually directed his Secretary of Defense to call this Florida minister to talk him out of burning the Koran. That’s incredibly dumb because he’s elevating this small fringe group and their tiny protest to something global.
Here’s the worst part: We’re getting mixed messages from our President, because on one hand we’re told we need to uphold freedom of religion and this means we ignore the threats and critical opinions and we allow this Mosque to be built next to Ground Zero. So, we’re told by our President, the Mayor of New York and others on the left, that we must cave in to those who want the Mosque and we should suppress those few fringe people over in Florida. On the other hand over in Florida we need to suppress free speech because it might inflame Muslims and this could cause us problems overseas – as if those who hate us need an excuse to wage more violence or that placating our sworn enemies has ever worked in the past.
Another argument presented in defense of the New York Mosque construction is that if they don’t move forward now we could incur a violent reaction by radicalized Muslims and it’s the same argument for suppressing the protest in Florida. What are we supposed to do America, can we really expect to sacrifice a little free speech to buy ourselves some peace? Do we submit to walking on egg shells for fear of offending Muslims over cartoons, books or some silly protest by a few people in Florida?
Right this minute we have a Florida preacher who is being inundated with death threats and there are numerous clerics around the world are proclaiming with supreme confidence that this man’s life is not his own anymore! He’s a marked man because he threatened to burn the Koran on 9/11! He dared bring attention to his personal belief that the Koran is an evil book and now his life is in danger, hmmm…. does anyone see a sort of nexus here?
This offensive, but totally legal event in Florida has gone global thanks to our President and the media. And somewhere in all this ruckus and debating we seem to have lost sight of something fairly important. It’s this famous quote on free speech, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?” This has often be used to describe the grand idealism behind our First Amendment right.
I’m not surprised that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA missed this point, but the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES skipped right over it too in a rush to protect Islamic sensibilities and placate their radical fringe. Thanks to their mishandling and bungling they have upgraded this small local event and given them global notoriety on par with a terrorist act. This was as unwise as it is unwarranted, and to prove it, it has already INSPIRED VIOLENCE and promises of more violence to come. Nice going media and nice going Mr. President
TERRORISM, MURDER, MAYHEM AND DEATH WARRANTS COMMITTED AND ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE NATION OF ISLAM ARE A MUCH, BIGGER THREAT TO WORLD PEACE THAN WHATEVER A FEW ECCENTRICS IN FLORIDA HAVE TO SAY – WHY ISN’T OUR LIBERAL MEDIA AND OUR LEADER IN WASHINGTON SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THAT?
I think you all know why, they’re just afraid. They really can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the greater issue of freedom of speech when they are preoccupied vilifying a tiny far right fringe group (Florida church protest) fearful of an Islamic backlash. This is a black day for free speech, and for those American’s who have fought and died to protect it.
“Imagine General Patton in the middle of World War II warning Americans not to say anything mean about Hitler, for fear of riling him up.”
This is a terrible analogy. No one has suggested we shouldn’t say anything mean about Osama bin Laden, or any of the other violent terrorists who want us dead. We’re talking about a religion made up of over a billion people, most of whom do not share the views of Al Qaeda.
“On the other hand over in Florida we need to suppress free speech”
No one has suggested this either. By saying this you make yourself sound very ignorant about what free speech actually is. Obama has made it clear that he will not and cannot stop this pastor from going through with his hateful acts. He simply exercised his own free speech by asking the pastor not to do it. Sarah Palin, in a moment of decency, did the same. And she and others are free to vent their anger over the NYC community center; the government has not tried to stop you from doing that.
Obama’s reaction to the two incidents is not a double standard; it comes down to what different people personally find offensive. Burning a book, especially one that is considered sacred to over a billion people, seems to offend him. I am glad to see that it offends many on the right as well. However, the building of a community center, which will be open to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and will have a space for a memorial dedicated to those who died on 9/11? Apparently he isn’t offended by that, and I don’t see why he should be. It may be inappropriate for him to speak his opinion on these issues, but it isn’t a violation of free speech and it isn’t a double standard.
“TERRORISM, MURDER, MAYHEM AND DEATH WARRANTS COMMITTED AND ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE NATION OF ISLAM ARE A MUCH, BIGGER THREAT TO WORLD PEACE THAN WHATEVER A FEW ECCENTRICS IN FLORIDA HAVE TO SAY – WHY ISN’T OUR LIBERAL MEDIA AND OUR LEADER IN WASHINGTON SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THAT?”
OK, first, “The Nation of Islam” is something completely different.
Second, are you really saying that the “liberal media” and Obama aren’t speaking out about Islamic terrorism? Really?
Chris, as always your comments are welcome and I am sorry I don’t have time to respond to all the issues you have brought up, but for now I want to clarify my comment about “TERRORISM, MURDER, MAYHEM AND DEATH WARRANTS COMMITTED AND ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE NATION OF ISLAM ARE A MUCH, BIGGER THREAT TO WORLD PEACE THAN WHATEVER A FEW ECCENTRICS IN FLORIDA HAVE TO SAY – WHY ISN’T OUR LIBERAL MEDIA AND OUR LEADER IN WASHINGTON SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THAT? It is known that violent people use the Islamic religion to justify their actions. In addition certain clerics who are ranking leaders in this religoin have issued fatwahs against people who have offended them for writing a book, for drawing a cartoon and such…I find that very offensive and barbaric. Do you disagree with this statement?
Fear? No. Dismay? Yes.
Which was the last “movement” to go in for book burning in a big way?
Pastor Terry is an ignoramus.
You do know, don’t you? that it was not the American media that ran with this thing … it was those AQ trollers of the internet who picked up on it.
Pastor Terry is a stooge, a pawn, a clod and a moron … playing into the hands of people who do not wish us well … and are quite gleeful over their successful manipulation of this whole thing into an international event.
Dismayed and disgusted, that’s what I am.
You of course realize that we on PS and commenter Soaps have all concluded that this Pastor was not acting appropriately and we have repeatedly made our feeling known about him?
AQ trollers on the net are one thing and they have a very small audiance. The Prezzie on the other hand draws quite a bit of attention when he opens his mouth and speaks. You would acknowledge that woudn’t you Libs? We kinda feel your Prezzie played right into the hands of the enemy and helped put this silly non-event on the world stage. He and the media have created a firestorm of controvery, not so much the AQ trollers…they couldn’t have done it without a lot of help from these folks. And you know that too…so why take pot shots at us? We’re just the messengers of what people are already thinking.
“It is known that violent people use the Islamic religion to justify their actions. In addition certain clerics who are ranking leaders in this religoin have issued fatwahs against people who have offended them for writing a book, for drawing a cartoon and such…I find that very offensive and barbaric. Do you disagree with this statement?”
Of course I don’t disagree with that, Jack. But what you said was that these are issues that the media and the government aren’t addressing. That’s just not true.
“We kinda feel your Prezzie played right into the hands of the enemy and helped put this silly non-event on the world stage.”
It was already a huge media story before Obama commented on it. I’m pretty sure Palin beat him to it, actually. Although a case could be made that this book-burning should have been ignored by everyone, I think it’s important that we confront these issues honestly and make it clear that they are not OK.
Chris: “We’re talking about a religion made up of over a billion people, most of whom do not share the views of Al Qaeda.”
I’ve heard this said over and over again. Since you seem to agree may I ask on what you have based this assertion? Is there an accounting somewhere or what?
Thanks
Libby: “playing into the hands of people who do not wish us well…and are quite gleeful over their successful manipulation of this whole thing into an international event.”
Which should sound a big warning bell that the bullying murderous folk we call the enemy are not just a few nuts hiding in caves but have a large following in the Muslim world.
I don’t know how we go about counting the number since those who adhere to extreme interpretations are covert about their intentions and beliefs. Deception and lies are part of their jihad.
I don’t know what percentage of the billion hate America verses what percentage agree with Al Queda verses what percentage take an active role in speaking out against violence against anyone, but my personal belief is (and obviously this only a crude estimate based on what I’ve seen in news broadcasts around the world) that at least 100,000,000 (that is 100 mil) Muslims around the world share a genuine, passionate hatred of the US, Isreal and western Christian values. Of this group I believe that about a million of them would become a jihadist if they were freed from their other obligations, and they had the opportunity at just the right moment.
The rest of the Muslim world I suspect are less prone to such feelings and activism, but that they are somewhere in between being openly dedicated to peaceful coexistence (a minority) to a being somewhat hostile, having a negative bias towards anything that involves the US, Americans, Jews or western Christian values.
However, on a one to one basis, without the influence of their peers watching their actions, I believe the overwhelming majority of all Muslims would be kind, respectful, courteous and even generous in thier hospitality towards others, meaning non-Muslims, which is a pardox that only understanding their social values and their religion could explain. This should not be confused with their political beliefs, the goals of their religion or how groups behave. These generalities are also made more complicated to assess in any degree of accuracy because of the various forms of Islam that exist. One sect could vary greatly from another or from one region to another, or one culture to another.
“Of this group I believe that about a million of them would become a jihadist if they were freed from their other obligations, and they had the opportunity at just the right moment”
That is 10%.
Here is a question for you, to tie so many of these posts together.
Question: if freed from other obligations, and they had the opportunity at just the right moment, what percentage of Americans would turn against their government?
Mark, you pose an interesting question that is worth considering, but like the Muslim question it is probably unanswerable with any degree of accuracy. My guess is that about 2 or 3% of the population would revolt. I think religious motivation is stronger than political. It always helps to think God is on your side and not just a group of likeminded politicos. And what do you think the estimate should be, you must have something in mind since you posed the question?
Before we get to percentages, maybe we should define terms like “jihadist” and turning against ones country.
I am assuming you mean doing something illegal, maybe immoral, to further ones cause.
In that case, I think your percentage is low.
If you mean armed revolution, I think you number is too high.
To tie some posts together, if some TPs or Arizona patriots could get away with violent acts against Muslims or Mexicans, given the rhetoric you post, it seems over 10% would.
Rhetoric implies we’re not being honest, as in lacking facts and engaging in hyperbole. Is that what you meant or is it our honest opinions you object too?
Mark, you mentioned turning against one’s country and generally that implies treason. Is it still called that when your country turns against you? Do you think there is ever political justification for turning against one’s country?
Is there ever a moral justification for slaughtering as many innocent, non-combant people as possible?
Rhetoric is another word for arguments. I could have said arguments, or comments, or just words. It was not intended to be judgmental.
I agree with you when you quoted Jefferson a few posts back; the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of every generation.
Thank you for that clarification.
Mark said, “…if some TPs or Arizona patriots could get away with violent acts against Muslims or Mexicans, given the rhetoric you post, it seems over 10% would.” Sorry Mark, I really don’t see that at all.
As a matter of fact I have never even heard anyone in those two areas suggest violence so I really don’t know how you can say such things with any credibility? I just went looking on the internet and I never saw anyone there in this cyber nuthouse advocating violence against Mexicans or Muslims. Maybe if we look hard enough we can find some troll posting nasty messages, but it’s a stretch of logic to connect such a person with the nice people that make up the two groups you are insulting when you insinuate they are violent prone.
By the way, did you hear that Britian’s Tony Blair believes the jihadist movement is much more widespread and deeper than the liberal left seems to believe and constantly refer to as only a very small fringe. In a recent interview he says this is why you don’t see throngs of Muslims taking to the streets protesting the terrorist actions of jihadists. Blair says, “Personally I think we will defeat this terrorism when we understand it is one battle, one struggle. This is a global movement with an ideology.” He also feels many Muslims in the US are sympathetic to the jihad movement. And this is coming from a liberal???! Wow…lol
Mark, I guess I have to take you at your word that you honestly believe 10% of Americans (TPs and Arizona patriots) would use violence against Muslims and Mexicans…”if they thought they could get away with it”.
Is that how you think…that it’s ok to do things “if you can get away with it”? I imagine most of the people you criticize adhere to the notion that character is defined as doing what is right even when no one is looking.
I don’t know what evidence you have to support that 10%. What I do know is that making such a claim has worked well for the left in the past. Such a lie told often enough and all that.
The left uses this tactic particularly when they can’t defend their record (jobs, health care, the economy) or respond adequately to specific considerations on issues. What I notice about the issues is that so far the left has said nothing to address serious, valid considerations regarding terror attacks from within (Muslims) or the problems associated with illegal immigration (Mexicans). The always cry racism and hatred!
We are currently witnessing particular groups of Muslims and particular groups of Mexicans using extreme violence and brutality not only against Americans of all races and creeds but also against people within their own communities and yet your synicism and disdain toward TPs and Arizona patriots exceeds that of these obvious murderers, tortuers, rapists, and dealers in human misery.
Amazing!
“You would acknowledge that woudn’t you Libs?”
I would acknowledge that once the Indonesians hit the streets in protest, the powers in this country were obliged to acknowledge the problem.
How about you acknowledge that Pastor Terry’s stunt is a entirely-to-be-expected progression of the ignorant fear mongering that’s been posted on this site for months.
Jack it’s a sad day indeed when information and open discussion is labeled “fear mongering”.
Tina,
Let’s review:
Jack wrote that “100,000,000 (that is 100 mil) Muslims around the world share a genuine, passionate hatred of the US, Isreal and western Christian values. Of this group I believe that about a million of them would become a jihadist if they were freed from their other obligations, and they had the opportunity at just the right moment.
I then wrote that was only ten percent, and asked what percent of Americans would do the same.
BTW, I was wrong. One million is one percent of 100 million. (Lucky for me, Soaps is not as good at math as he is at spelling.).
So, I guess I now agree with Jack’s original statement. One percent of any group is likely to do something stupid if they think they could get away with it (even the Tea Party), especially if they are spoon fed.
Chris has been trying to tell you the same thing
That’s all
Libby, fear mongering? lol C’mon, give me a break here. That’s pretty darn silly. I’m with you Tina, a sad day indeed. But, this is why we have to keep on trying!
Tina do you know of a term I could use for head-in-the-sand mongering, regarding Libs comments?
I caught it, the percentage, but it didn’t seem worth mentioning. As for Soaps, he’s been off and probably didn’t read any of this. But, I felt our numbers were about right and I am glad we can agree on them. However, a million still seems huge to me… a million people united on anything can accomplish a lot of good or bad for almost anything. I sure wish the radicals were using that power for something good, instead of killing people for Allah.
OK so maybe it’s a guy thing, all this percentage stuff.
I look out across America and see a nation that has been incredibly tolerant and restrained. I see people willing to use the process to effect change. There are groups on the fringes that have done a few stupid things but most of what they do is talk tough.
I imagine there is quit a large number of men in this country (with weapons and training) that could kill (and probably get away with it) if they wanted to. They haven’t done it and they won’t do it because they are both civilized and tolerant of others. They also value their freedom and they respect the rule of law.
The standard leftist lie about the violent nature of people on the right is just so much talk like so many of the other of their claims.
We can see how effective this tactic is. We post artivles about what is happening in the economy and health care. but they don’t fire anyone up the way this subject does. Responses to considerations, concerns, and frankly, factual information regarding these is met quite offten with silence or the fall back position that Bush did it or Reagan did it.
Jack I think what we’re looking for is something that describes “false sense of security” mongering. Those who don’t wish to see or hear about the evil we face are attempting to convice everyone that we are just intolerant crazies. Also, they think if we would shut up all would be well. This type would appease bullies…and pay the price.
I used to wonder how Jews could be forced to wear stars on their clothing, how they could be loaded into trains and carted away, without anyone objecting…I no longer wonder. People who refuse to confront the evil that is before them will shift their principles, little by little, until they come to the place where they will tolerate just about any injustice…and then realize suddenly it’s too late.
Wish I could think of a catchy word…
No,I am still reading the comments. I just have not replied because they have gone so far afield from my original point. Everything after the first paragraph is someone else’s comments. My point was not about how many Muslims hate America or whether anyone is overgeneralizing on either side of this holy or unholy war. My comment was about General Petraeus and his scolding of the American preacher (whacko or not) for just threatening to burn a book, because Petraeus feared retaliation from the enemy. Petreaus has always been considered the brave hero in this drama. He is a career soldier who proudly wears the Combat Infantryman Badge on his chest. That is the long, horizontal rectangle with an ancient rifle in the center. As a former combat infantryman myself, and now a disabled veteran, I can assure you that the CIB is more significant than all the other ribbons combined. It means he has been in a war zone under active hostile fire. It means he has bravely faced the enemy and not backed down. I expected Obama and his gang of cowardly hate-America followers to condemn the preacher and protect the terrorists, but Petraeus, of all people? And bear in mind, those of you who are so quick to always remind everyone that the bad guys are only a small percentage of the billions of Muslims, it was precisely the bad guys that Petraeus was worried about. He was afraid that the Taliban, al Quaeda, and other jihadists would take it out on our front-line troops in the battlefield. These are armed enemies who have taken a solemn vow to murder every American soldier they can, and Petraeus is worried about hurting their feelings? I am still astonished. And I still cannot imagine a general like Patton ever having that attitude.
Tina said, “I look out across America and see a nation that has been incredibly tolerant and restrained. I see people willing to use the process to effect change.” How true, Americans are tolerant and restrained. It’s part of our idealism rooted in free speech.
In the Muslim world they have been taught that obedience to their religious doctrine is far more important than the inalienable rights we hold dear. Muslims prefer to submit their will to that which they see is the will of Allah as interpreted by their Imam’s. Imam’s arrive at what Allah wants using selected verses from the Koran, while skipping past the verses that do not serve their agenda or conflict with it. This is like view life through a straw. I think this is one of the reasons why hatefilled, biggoted, violent Muslim jihadists that lend themselves to be manipulated by radicalized Imams will continue this war against America and western values for at least the next 100 years and likely much longer.
American’s don’t believe in submitting their will to others, they believe in exerting their will, as free thinking individuals and I think that is much healthier society and better for the human spirit.
Also, they think if we would shut up all would be well. This type would appease bullies…and pay the price.
I used to wonder how Jews could be forced to wear stars on their clothing
———————————-
Tina, that reminds me of a story, or maybe a joke, so I apologize if you have heard it before. Two old Jews named Saul and Morrie, who are the best of friends but always bickering with each other, are lined up in front of the firing squad wall, and a Nazi guard is passing out blindfolds. Morrie says, “I will not wear a blindfold.” Saul says, “Now Morrie, don’t cause any trouble.”
Soaps said, “Petreaus has always been considered the brave hero in this drama. He is a career soldier who proudly wears the Combat Infantryman Badge on his chest…. ” Yes, and that is a badge of honor that sets apart those who have served from those who have risked their lives in direct combat.
Soaps opinion on courage carries more weight than most of ours because because he understands what it means to face off against a determined enemy. He has every right to be shocked at what Petraeus said. Petraeus is a lifelong democrat as was his father and he has become know as a politician/soldier. He is currently under enormous pressure to walk the party line as Obama has drawn it and avoid the pitfalls that took out General Stanley McChrystal.
Perhaps Soaps can take some solice from another soldier who has been following this thread. He was a team leader in the Army’s Special Forces in Iraq. His comment went something like this, “I can’t believe Petraeus said that. Since when is our Army afraid of them? When I was in Iraq I wasn’t afraid of Al Qaeda… they were afraid we were coming after them.” And he did, almost every single day. Special Forces raids often came in the middle of the night and took the enemy completely by surprise.
The folly of Obama and Petreaus saying they didn’t want to stir up trouble would be comical if it were not so pathetic. We can’t go 10 minutes without stirring up Muslims somewhere, why bother being careful? Radicalized Muslims around the world are way too quick to riot and kill people for some of the dumbest reasons, and if they are not rioting and killing they are issuing these equally stupid Fatwahs. God good, they want to kill Claudia Schiffer the model because she wore a dress with a phrase from the Koran writen on it. In a recent riot over 200 Christians were killed by machete weilding Muslims in Nigeria, a 1000 were killed in the same area several years by Muslims. Over a 140 died in rioting around the world after a Danish cartoon offended Muslims.
I’m sick of it and I don’t give a crap anymore about offending these radicals. They are idiots, morons, brainwashed fools and they don’t need any excuses to kill people. So, for Gen. Petraeus or Obama to be so overly concerned that they make a plea to American people to be nice because we might stir them up, its disgraceful and even worse it’s a fools errand.
Thank you for the wonderful story soaps…I’m still smiling through tears!
The Jewish people have a wonderful tradition…let us reason together. It is built into their nature to probe and discuss until understanding can be found. This is a wonderful tradition that educates and creates a sense of community when dealing with children, neighbors and friends. It can be a fatal flaw when dealing with uncompromising, unreasonable, tyranical, egomaniacle maniacs bent on destroying you. Sigh…this is the enemy we face.
I don’t recall Patraeus being like this under Bush…if that’s accurate I would have to conclude he is speaking on orders from the WH. In fact I wouldn’t put it past Obama to order Patraeus to make this speech, rather than doing it himself because he figured the general had more credibility than he does as CiC.
Do you guys remember Patraeus saying anything similar under Bush?
Nope, never heard Petraeus say anything like that under Bush.
You’re forgetting Genral Shinseki–the guy who told Bush “many more troops” were needed to properly fight the Iraq war.
Bush fired him and got a general who agreed with him.
Years later, of course, Bush actually followed Shinseki’s advice–calling it “The Surge.”
To this day, Neocons cite the surge has some sort of proof that Bush knew what he was about. Had he listened to Shinseki, those troops who died before the “surge” would not have died in vain.
Quentin, you are so right, I forgot all about Shinseki. Shineski questioned the cakewalk scenario that the Bush administration was selling. Right after the invasion he told Congress that we would need several hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq to put an end to the violence against our troops and against each other. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called his estimate “wildly off the mark,” but it was Wolfowitz who was wildly off the mark…in the perfect clarity of hindsight…. he was a fool.
Pre-invasion Wolfowitz said, “I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down.” Famous last words, eh?
By July 2003, “many experts say that the worst of the chaos in Iraq could have been contained if there had been enough troops on the ground from the beginning. There’s a growing consensus that something close to what Shinseki suggested might be necessary to turn the situation around.”
General Shinseki continued, “It takes a significant ground force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.”
General Shinseki made clear that he was providing only his personal assessment of postwar needs, and that the final decision would be made by the commander of American forces in the region, Gen. Tommy R. Franks. Franks didn’t stand up for his man.
Donald Rumsfeld acted like an ass when he repudiated him, saying he was “far off the mark”. In semi-private, the Pentagon’s civilian leadership was far more scathing. A “senior administration official” told the Village Voice newspaper that Gen Shinseki’s remark was “bullshit from a Clintonite enamoured of using the army for peacekeeping and not winning wars.”
Ain’t that somethin? Shinseki was right and those jugheads that opposed him will be held up to redicule by history. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Quentin.
“Libby, fear mongering? lol C’mon, give me a break here.”
I will not. If you can’t see the connection, it’s because you refuse to … cause it’s baldly apparent to everybody else.
Makin’ boogie men out of perfectly respectable citizens who happen to espouse a faith different from yours. It’s barbaric and unconscionable, and you ought to be ashamed.
Quentin you can just skip this info.
With all due respect to military men the opinion of Shishenski on troop strength was only part of an ongoing dispute in the equation. From my reading I rediscovered the conflict going on in the Pentagon with high level (political) forces butting heads.
From comments on the blog, Just One Minute:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/general_shinsek.html
Long before 911 Shinseki made a number of enemies over the “black beret” fiasco.
http://www.ricarangers.org/docs/History/BlackBeret.htm
Here’s another military post on the beret fiasco:
Obama and the Democrats in Congress are finding today that the best laid plans to turn the economy around don’t always turn out as you expect. They too were told different measures would work.
Bush/Rumsfeld made mistakes (and sometimes went unsupported) and plans that were in place also fell apart (Turkey backing out). An expectation of smooth sailing would be rediculous. Hindsight always damages the brilliance of insights and plans of men…including those decisions made by Shinseki.
Libby: “Makin’ boogie men out of perfectly respectable citizens who happen to espouse a faith different from yours. It’s barbaric and unconscionable…”
Then why have you done it!
NOBODY has made a “boogie man” out of Rauf but you and the 30% percent (or less) that side with him without question. You make him a “boogie man” to make him the victim in the controversy.
Rauf was merely questioned as to his funding sources, his intentions, the controversy about the title of his book as sold in the ME, and his unwillingness to answer direct questions about Hamas. He was criticized for choosing a place thought of as sacred ground by those who lost family and friends on 911. He was asked to be considerate and thoughtful of their feelings. These are legitimate concerns and questions…Rauf has yet to address them adequately or even concern himself with them.
Besides, you have some nerve bringing up boogie men. Your side, instead of responding with respect and tolerance for another viewpoint, yells bigot and labels 70% of your fellow Americans as Islamaphobes in the process. Now that’s how to create a “boogie man” and it’s a lot of crap!
There are around a hundred mnosques in NYC…they went up without protest and they continue to stay open without protest. NYC is home to many peoples and faiths. Give me a large break…it isn’t about his “different faith”!
Tina: “There are around a hundred mnosques in NYC…they went up without protest and they continue to stay open without protest.”
False. Read more, please.
Chris: “False. Read more, please.”
Nice dismissal. Try giving a few examples. I looked and found nothing but a drunk guy who wondered into a mosque in Queens and urinated on a prayer rug. If any mosques are being protested the protesters are few and largly unsupported or there would be headlines.
Try again!
Libs..how do you know what my faith is? And I am NOT ragging on anyone elses faith, I have only raised problems about the Islamic world and how they treat people (see long list of murder and terrorism)
I’m just trying to stand up for basic human rights when I take them to task and I’m kinda surprised you wouldn’t want to do that too?
If someone’s wacky religion gets put off by my criticisms of women treated like property and brainwashing of little kids to be suicide bombers its too bad, but its not my problem.