DD wont’ condemn Hamas? That tells us a lot.

DD won’t condemn an organization that the Arabist State Department has condemned as Terrorist Organizations, that is, an hostile, violent enemy of the United States.

Tony

I have to give you credit for maintaining your rational demeanor amidst this deluge of ignorance and prejudice. There are two larger points though.

You made the first one: saving lives in Pakistan by contributing to aid for the victims of the flood is a real (as opposed to emotionally ginned up) issue.

The other is that Republicans and ultraconservatives love this debate about the proposed Islamic community center for two reasons. First, it appeals to the lowest common denominator of hatred and fear which makes it easy to stir up the public.

Second, every minute spent discussing this (extremely minor issue in the vast scope of things) is a minute not used to discuss the accomplishments of the Obama administration or how to improve the economy at an even faster pace.

I say let these guys vent. All they want is attention. The more they are ignored, the more their venom will show and the less they will be taken seriously.

Bob-
I won’t play the “condemn” game. It’s a false litmus test because no matter how many things one condemns, there is always some overlooked action that someone else can point out as a gotcha.

I’m against terrorism and war crimes as a general principle, so there is no need to provide a specific list.

You want to use Hamas as your litmus test, but you don’t want to acknowledge any war crimes by Israel or the US.

As for your other “gem”:
Muslims, not Americans, are religious bigots

You should really invest in a mirror or take a closer look at the people on the religious Right.

Because it seems your column does not reprint the more remote (time-wise) comments, I’d like to repeat my query (noting the events-of-the-day in Manhattan):

“Should the zoning advantages afforded under RLUIPA be available to a group that refuses to renounce terrorist organizations [that may be (in)directly funding it]?”

Guzzardi and I already know where DD stands; where are you?

[Also, you did not reply to the direct query regarding Rauf never retracting his quote that America was an "accessory" to 9-11. Does this fact not suggest that anti-American ideology might be spread through this "Mosque"?]

Robert-
Zoning rules should be conditional upon denouncing particular organizations? Really?
In some cases, terrorist or freedom fighter is subjective depending on who wins.

How about requiring people to denounce the CIA for engaging in illegal torture (even though it was only a few renegades)?
The CIA has certainly (in)directly funded terrorism with with various large cash bribes in Afghanistan and elsewhere to various warlords, etc.
That certainly meets your criteria.
How about Iran-Contra? Another fine example of something to denounce.

[Maintaining my resolute decision to consider DD to have become self-marginalized...as illustrated again by his tangential comments...I will focus on "answering my own question" and moving forward the exchange with the author of this piece...and the fundamental issue therein.]

It may be recalled that this discussion, from my perspective, evoked a response from Tony regarding the site (others have been hit by debris, as well, although I have not seen evidence that a major piece of an airplane hit any other building…thus rendering the Burlington Coat Factory, indeed, “Ground Zero”) and the financing (basically, “so what?” if it comes from the Saudis and/or Iran).

I continue to have problems with both of these answers, but at least he replied to this focused queries. Thus, I would request DOCUMENTATION that other “airplane-parts” specifically struck other lower-Manhattan buildings. And I would request CONFIRMATION that Tony feels it’s OK to delink funding-sources with conjuring the ideology that would be espoused through this Mosque/Cultural-Center.

Regarding the former, because I have an open mind, if other buildings were hit, then it would be necessary to downgrade this viewpoint (and, thus, expansion of the perceived perimeter of “Ground Zero”).

Regarding the latter, because I have an open mind, if one can justify adoption of a “disinterested” viewpoint when determining whether the impact of a cultural event can be predictably “peace-promoting” vs. “a recruitment tool,” then it would be necessary to downgrade this viewpoint (and, thus, the “Enquiring minds want to know” journalistic-curiosity).

*

My central theme will be explored in the next posting….

Yesterday, the Imam’s wife confronted the quotes-of-concern from the 60 Minutes interview. It is necessary to vet them, so as to ponder whether they answer pivotal questions.

[Again, with all due respect to the concept of blogging, this exchange is directed solely @ Tony, for reasons aforementioned, although everyone else--except DD, predictably--may be able to provide cogent insights regarding how these two quotes are best perceived.]

She basically said that American policies were an “accessory” because of support in the 1980′s for OBL when he was fighting the USSR in Afghanistan.

The concept of “realpolitik” suggests that one makes the best decisions, strategically, at a given point in time…and then readjusts after more follow-up information has been acquired. Therefore, when the Cold War continued to rage, was it not inappropriate to support Communism’s enemy (at the time)?

This does not mean that America was locked-in forever to supporting OBL. Note the experience of Ho Chi Minh [whereby we supported the French following their Dien Bien Phu] and the Iran-Contra affair [whereby we somewhat blindly tried to understand the Mullahs]. These actions can be criticized, but they were again contemporaneous with, respectively, Cold War and “Let you and him fight” mentalities…correct or incorrect. Again, America could reformulate based on the candid assessment of the behavior of other countries.

This is why this simplistic viewpoint is so disingenuous…and why it was so very insensitive when it was uttered only a few days after 9-11.

Furthermore, her quotes that Mosque-opposition reflects extremist anti-Islam attitudes…these are both unfounded and inflammatory (particularly when being emitted by a woman who is dubbed “moderate” by the MSM). Is 60% of America anti-Muslim?

No one has undermined the legal right to build [RELUIPA], no one has argued against religious freedom or freedom-of-speech [Bill of Rights]. The (surprisingly focused, when one notes the myriad disorganized outcry) theme has been that the organizers would best manifest ecumenical attitudes were they to relocate, ’tis all!

[DD would predictably trot-out extremist quotes, but the clear thrust has been "insensitivity" to the 9-11 families and to those for whom the largest attack on America by a foreign entity in history remains an understandable sore-point.]

So, Tony, you have an additional burden, should you choose to accept this “Mission Impossible” metaphor. Can you reasonably endorse her statements as anything other than pseudo-naivete and demagoguery? Is she reciting a utile two-part political/historical narrative that withstands the “scratch-and-sniff” test? Is she trying to marshal sympathy for her viewpoint based primarily on accusing her opposition of being bigoted?

It’s funny that guys like Sklaroff and Guzzardi who call themselves conservatives who favor local control in governmental decisions are pushing for Big Government in Washington to squash a local zoning decision in the sovereign state of New York.

Why are these politicians like Palin and Gingrich who claim to be “constitutionalists” favor usurping the Constitutional provisions of the 10th Amendment by obstructing a local decision?

The answer is that they see a political opportunity to score points before November. Plain and simple.

And another thing!

Why do we treat seriously the opinions of Zionists like Guzzardi and Sklaroff who believe that the Capitol of the United States in Tel Aviv and not Washington DC?

People treat seriously the opinions of Zionists such as “The Bob” [Two Minds, One Voice] – Guzzardi and myself – because it is difficult to suppress the truth.

BTW, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. [The Capitol is the building, whereas the capital is the city...note disparate spelling.]

And people are increasingly aware of the importance of the issues we espouse because we buttress our arguments with FACTS…and we do not misrepresent the view of others (for example, by harping on attacking pseudo-legalisms which had never been raised as an opposition-argument).

Dennis Prager notes that Republicans/Conservatives win debates with Democrats/Liberals because WE KNOW BOTH SIDES, whereas the Progressives depend upon the Olberman/Maddow/Radigan/Schultz/Matthews party-line.

Perhaps “Constitutionalist PA” would want to tackle the same updated/focused queries that have been directed @ Tony?

Robert-
A stray piece of the airplane making it two blocks away from ground zero does not make the coat factory ground zero, however answer me this:

Wouldn’t you still be objecting to the community center if a piece of airplane fell on the building NEXT TO the coat factory, or directly across the street, or if a piece of the plane landed in the street in front of (but not on) the coat factory? Would you make a street landing spot hallowed ground that couldn’t be a parking space for Muslims or a Muslim food cart vendor?

There’s already a Mosque 4 blocks from ground zero that’s been there since BEFORE the WTC was originally built. Will you be objecting to it next?
How about the mosque at the Pentagon?

Anyway, OTHER nearby rooftops were covered with small parts of the plane:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911
So, the coat factory wasn’t the only building hit with parts of the plane.

Here’s MY proposal if they ever rebuild the trade center: reserve a separate floor for each of the world’s major religions to have a community center. Christian floor. Jewish floor. Islam floor. Hindu floor. Buddhist floor. etc.
Or just have one floor, with a multi-religious cultural center, dedicated to teaching tolerance and the American values enshrined in the First Amendment.

At least you are taking the same side as Bin Laden and the terrorists who don’t like centers that preach peace and interfaith harmony:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Since when do you “know both sides”? That’s a laugh. You don’t even understand the concept of the First Amendment. You don’t understand the definition of ground zero. You don’t seem to care about the strip clubs and other businesses within the same expanded definition you want to impose. You can’t separate the Imam’s dedication against terrorist from a few of his statements that you don’t like. If you were any more lopsided on this, you’d have to turn your computer monitor on it’s side to read it.

Memo to Tony: More problematic quotes that undermine the claim that the Imam is trying to build-bridges…and, thus, that the construction of this Mosque would enhance that effort (and don’t forget the tape in which he used the N-word):

“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.”

This was uttered in Australia at a 2005 conference in Australia at the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Center during a question and answer session, as part of what sponsors say was a dialogue to improve relations between America and the Muslim world.

This death-toll allegation was derived from an article published in a British medical journal, The Lancet, which was lambasted for its having been based on unfounded assumptions/projections. The article [hyperlink provided infra] also notes: “On the substance of Rauf’s 2005 accusations, none other than former President Bill Clinton has defended the sanctions, some of which took place during his years in the White House. Clinton and other diplomats assert that Saddam Hussein’s regime corrupted the sanctions and denied humanitarian aid to his own people.”

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/24/state-department-%25E2%2580%259Caware%25E2%2580%259D-ground-zero-mosque-imam%25E2%2580%2599s-controversial-remarks#ixzz0xZdzvIip

Tony, a follow-up assessment pends.

President Obama’s outreach to Iran, Turkey and the Arabs in Gaza and Judea-Samaria has failed in every way. And the tilt to the Muslim world has moved us a away from an alliance with India, our natural ally.

First of all, Tony, you have a loose-end to confront. Second, regarding Bill’s (incessant) point, the key-concern (assuming he had read my documentation) is the ideology of the Imam…and its implications regarding the true intent that can be divined therefrom as to what the “bridge-building” entails.

I’m reminded of an episode of “The Twilight Zone” entitled “Serving Man.” The aliens arrive to show how to maximize agriculture, and humans are invited to “vacation” on the mother planet…never to return. Why? Because the “bible” that is employed is translated and found to be a cook-book!

This ecumenical message of Mr./Mrs. Imam is problematic, both in the past and over the weekend. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those who support the Mosque (a diminishing %-age of Americans) to confront these data and to conjure an alternate explanation…or to concur that this Imam should not be leading this Mosque @ this site @ this time.

*

Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial quotes the Imam as having endorsed the destruction of Israel (incrementally) and the Iranian government (dating bak to 1979).

This is crying for a comment!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451762406545760.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h