Footwedge;462201 wrote:This whole argument that Muslims haven't been vociferous in denouncing terrorism is so ridiculous it defies description.

Here's a link that destroys your feebly weak argument.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Fine....express condemnation. But it's really about getting your own house in order.

Muslims themselves will need to be the ones to effectively clamp down on its kook element. How about starting by asking their Imam's to stop preaching hate of the Great Satan (America)? In many, many mosques around the world (particularly the Middle East) Muslim children are born and raised to hate Israel and the west...mostly the United States.

Meanwhile, American soldiers and Marines are in harms way attempting to flush these kook fringe bastards out.

Sorry Footwedge. Post all the links to examples of Muslims condemning radical Islamic terrorism all you want. It doesn't make me sleep any better at night nor does it change my perception of the self-proclaimed religion of peace.

Footwedge;462005 wrote:People like Ahmad Rashad and Kareem Abdul Jabbar should be water boarded

Way to contribute absolutely nothing to the debate.

BoatShoes;462042 wrote:So you've suggested that adhering to Sharia law in repudiation of democratically created laws is the mainstream and that muslims, even moderate ones, will abide by this and act in ways incompatible with western society. Why don't you just come out and say that as a general rule we should at first look at muslims skeptically and probably just look to avoid Islamic presence generally in the U.S. because it's incompatible with our values? I mean you read websites that endorse the idea that Islam comes from the devil. This is an anonymous message board. Why not just admit that nothing, not even Rauf condemning Hamas in public (because it doesn't necessarily reflect what he privately believes), is going to convince you that this guy is a decent guy?

This isn't about the Mosque really for you is it? Why not just admit that you think Islam is incompatible with our values? Why skirt the issue?

Maybe you missed this part of my post:

The point has also been made that terrorism, violence, sharia law, etc., while not practiced by a majority of Muslims,

The issue is not average Muslims- it's the leaders who speak for them and are behind the GZ mosque. If they condemn terrorism, they will condemn Hamas. Pretty simple.

Another "moderate"- notice a pattern?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244788/another-moderate-gz-mosque-supporter-cant-bring-himself-call-hamas-terrorist-organizat

This is a game that sharia-promoting Islamists like Feisal Rauf have raised to an art form. As I explain in the debate, it is why they can look you in they eye, claim in all apparent earnestness that they condemn “terrorism,” and yet excuse Hamas, call for the “one-state solution” for Israel, and support the Iranian theocracy — the leading terrorist state in the world. They do not consider the killing of non-Muslims whom they portray as opposing Islam to be terrorism — they call that “resistance.” They know if they merely say they deplore “terrorism,” the media and the Left will swoon and call them “moderates.” But what you think you’re hearing, and what they’re actually saying, are two very different things.

GeneralsIcer89;461666 wrote:In the larger massacres, sure, but the LRA kills people daily, too. I don't think you'll find accurate death totals, as there hasn't exactly been coverage of this. I'd estimate the daily death toll adds up pretty quickly, however. The actual Ugandan army has been guilty of similar acts. As for the funding, it mostly came out of the churches that support Pat Robertson. Those have all shifted gears to help put their current government, as well as policies, in power. You know, the one that thinks hanging gays, banning miniskirts, and allowing those who oppose the government to be raped and have their homes desecrated, among other things. In the case of the church my family forced me to go to, they had a Ugandan children's choir come in to sing, and the children's choir had pipelines to the LRA back in the mid-90s. They traveled throughout the States, and got *plenty* of money from doing so. All of the images they portrayed were propaganda designed to garner support. They had another Ugandan kid's choir back several years later, and that group had a pipeline directly to the current government, and their message was all about the "new Christian values" in Uganda, which were praised by Bush and many megachurch leaders. Those "values" that were praised have decimated human rights in Uganda, unless of course one is a Christian. It's nothing but a violent theocracy.

Can you give me a link to anything you said here describing this?

For now I have to trust what you say is true, and given that I would bet that the churches who allegedly supported the LRA, did so without knowing what was really happening.

I highly doubt any church that isn't completely psychotic would support the LRA if they knew what they were supporting.

jhay78;462229 wrote:Maybe you missed this part of my post:
The issue is not average Muslims- it's the leaders who speak for them and are behind the GZ mosque. If they condemn terrorism, they will condemn Hamas. Pretty simple.

Another "moderate"- notice a pattern?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244788/another-moderate-gz-mosque-supporter-cant-bring-himself-call-hamas-terrorist-organizat

So, you're saying that if the religious leader does not specifically call out Hamas, even if he calls out and condemns al Qaeda, the Taliban and radical groups, that he is still horrible and not a moderate? Wow, I wish the world was that simple. It's not. Sometimes in order to win you have to take what you can get in order to convince moderate Muslims to stay away from the radical groups. If you start ignoring moderates solely because of their position on Hamas, you are not going to get anywhere in the Muslim world and America will be less secure because of that.
Not all terrorism is created equal. World is more complex than that.

How do you think Iraq started to turn around? We embraced the shady characters that, actually probably supported whole heartily Hamas. But, their strategic importance out weighed that view on Hamas and other forms of terrorism.

Hamas is a concern yes, but the reality is Hamas is not going away and perhaps some people who sort of embrace Hamas can help shape their future. Just a thought.
But, in terms of importance, his position on al Qaeda, the Taliban and turning Muslims away from those radical groups trump his view on Hamas to me. But, that is just me a practitioner.

Believer, I agree the rest of the region should stand up. But, there is so much more complex things going in some countries that also influence religious fundamentalism, such as economics, a country's leadership structure, Israel, Orientalism, jealously, etc.

ptown_trojans_1;462397 wrote:So, you're saying that if the religious leader does not specifically call out Hamas, even if he calls out and condemns al Qaeda, the Taliban and radical groups, that he is still horrible and not a moderate? Wow, I wish the world was that simple. It's not. Sometimes in order to win you have to take what you can get in order to convince moderate Muslims to stay away from the radical groups. If you start ignoring moderates solely because of their position on Hamas, you are not going to get anywhere in the Muslim world and America will be less secure because of that.
Not all terrorism is created equal. World is more complex than that.

How do you think Iraq started to turn around? We embraced the shady characters that, actually probably supported whole heartily Hamas. But, their strategic importance out weighed that view on Hamas and other forms of terrorism.

Hamas is a concern yes, but the reality is Hamas is not going away and perhaps some people who sort of embrace Hamas can help shape their future. Just a thought.
But, in terms of importance, his position on al Qaeda, the Taliban and turning Muslims away from those radical groups trump his view on Hamas to me. But, that is just me a practitioner.

Believer, I agree the rest of the region should stand up. But, there is so much more complex things going in some countries that also influence religious fundamentalism, such as economics, a country's leadership structure, Israel, Orientalism, jealously, etc.

That all makes sense, but why the stumbling block with Hamas? Neither of the two Imams will even answer the question.

It seems pretty clear from their charter:

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad
There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility

This is pretty insightful:

It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect.

I know "not all terrorism is created equal", but their charter doesn't seem to leave much room for doubt.

True. But, I'd mention the latest issue of Foreign Affairs and what reads like moderate position in order to bring in Hamas.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66541/daniel-byman/how-to-handle-hamas
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/opinion/24iht-edbyman.html

That said, the Hamas of 1988 is different than the Hamas in 2010. The 2006 elections and the 2007 take over changed the political wing. It is much more complex than quoting the Charter.
But, again, to me his views on al Qaeda and radical Islam matter more than Hamas.

ptown_trojans_1;462685 wrote:True. But, I'd mention the latest issue of Foreign Affairs and what reads like moderate position in order to bring in Hamas.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66541/daniel-byman/how-to-handle-hamas
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/opinion/24iht-edbyman.html

That said, the Hamas of 1988 is different than the Hamas in 2010. The 2006 elections and the 2007 take over changed the political wing. It is much more complex than quoting the Charter.
But, again, to me his views on al Qaeda and radical Islam matter more than Hamas.

Thanks for the links- it seems a little naive to think Hamas is going to abandon violence anytime soon, but I'm no scholar either.

If Hamas cannot be uprooted, it might be convinced to not disrupt peace talks with violence and tone down its rhetoric. In order for Hamas to want a lasting cease-fire, Israel and its allies must change the organization’s decision-making calculus — a process that will require both incentives and threats.

One way to go about this would be for Israel to allow the regular flow of goods into Gaza with international, rather than Israeli, monitors manning the crossing points. Israeli intelligence would still watch what goes in and out to ensure that the monitors did their job, but symbolically the switch would be important.

In exchange, Hamas would commit to a lasting cease-fire and agree to stop all attacks from the territory under its control. Hamas would also close the tunnels and end its smuggling.

My thought is, if the Imam truly wants to build bridges and promote interfaith healing and still build a mosque/cultural center near the site of the worst terrorist attack in US history, he would condemn all forms of terrorism, not just al Qaeda. Leaving Hamas out of the equation leaves room for doubt, IMO.

jhay78;462229 wrote:Way to contribute absolutely nothing to the debate.

Huh? I.ve probably posted more on this thread than anyone.

The issue is not average Muslims- it's the leaders who speak for them and are behind the GZ mosque. If they condemn terrorism, they will condemn Hamas. Pretty simple.

Another "moderate"- notice a pattern?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244788/another-moderate-gz-mosque-supporter-cant-bring-himself-call-hamas-terrorist-organizat

I've already posted a link whereby scores of Muslim leaders from around the globe have categorically castigated the terrorist acts of a teeny tiny minority of Muslims that have committed these acts.

When are the Israelis gonna publicly denounce the terrorist activities of Menachin Begin when he was a member of the Urgan group? Or the Lehi group? Or the other terrorist groups that permeated Zionism in the 1930's?

And lastly, why do you post the rubbish posted by the National Review?...as big of a warmongering rag full of chickenhawk writers to somehow support your point??

Footwedge;462902 wrote:Huh? I.ve probably posted more on this thread than anyone.

I was referring to the waterboarding Ahmad Rashad and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar comment. It added nothing to the debate.

And lastly, why do you post the rubbish posted by the National Review?...as big of a warmongering rag full of chickenhawk writers to somehow support your point?

I'm surprised it took til page 15 before someone brought out the "chickenhawk warmongerer" comment with reference to Nat'l Review. Yes they are deeply conservative, but they've been around awhile and have stood the test of time. Andy McCarthy, having prosecuted terrorists in the '90's, is more than your typical right-wing partisan hack- he knows a thing or two about Islam and terrorism. I thought his articles (four, I think) were spot on and actually added something to the debate.

I think the debate needs nationalized. Put it on CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Put the top Islamic Imams on as well as the top Administration officials. Here's the debate topics:

1. If Islam is the Religion of Peace, why do certain radical elements espouse Sharia Law for all, death to Infidels, and mosques to be placed at their places of conquering?
2. What specific passages of the Quran give these radical nut cases the authority to murder and maim innocent people (mostly Americans)?
3. Is Islam's ultimate desire to fundamentally change America to accept Sharia Law and become a Muslim nation?
4. If so, how do we stop them from achieving this goal?

BGFalcons82;463000 wrote:I think the debate needs nationalized. Put it on CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Put the top Islamic Imams on as well as the top Administration officials. Here's the debate topics:

1. If Islam is the Religion of Peace, why do certain radical elements espouse Sharia Law for all, death to Infidels, and mosques to be placed at their places of conquering?
2. What specific passages of the Quran give these radical nut cases the authority to murder and maim innocent people (mostly Americans)?
3. Is Islam's ultimate desire to fundamentally change America to accept Sharia Law and become a Muslim nation?
4. If so, how do we stop them from achieving this goal?

I am sure they would be able to speak for the entire Muslim world. What an idiotic idea.

BGFalcons82;463000 wrote:I think the debate needs nationalized. Put it on CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Put the top Islamic Imams on as well as the top Administration officials. Here's the debate topics:

1. If Islam is the Religion of Peace, why do certain radical elements espouse Sharia Law for all, death to Infidels, and mosques to be placed at their places of conquering?
2. What specific passages of the Quran give these radical nut cases the authority to murder and maim innocent people (mostly Americans)?
3. Is Islam's ultimate desire to fundamentally change America to accept Sharia Law and become a Muslim nation?
4. If so, how do we stop them from achieving this goal?

1. Maybe because they take their own translation of the texts and fit it to their agenda? There are really many different translations for one passage, and that one passage can impact the rest of the sura. The main, majority of the Muslims, do not take those radical passages to mean the same., In fact, I and others on here, would argue that the radicals who kill Americans are not really Muslims. Only taking the text to fit their agenda and not living up to getting closer to God and helping the fellow man.
2. Not sure, but Sayidd Qutb first talked about the idea in the 1960s and started the modern jihad phase. I'd say though, most of the different translations of the Qur'an on here (which no one other than me has cited where they got their translations) are the passages.
3. I doubt that is Islam's goal. I doubt Islam has one goal since their are many different types of Islam. If there is one goal, it is getting closer to God and submitting to him.
4. Kill radicals and use the moderates to slow the growth of the radicals. You also preach tolerance and use force and the olive branch to build up areas to where economically, it is much better not to join a radical group.

jhay78;462788 wrote:Thanks for the links- it seems a little naive to think Hamas is going to abandon violence anytime soon, but I'm no scholar either.

No prob.

My thought is, if the Imam truly wants to build bridges and promote interfaith healing and still build a mosque/cultural center near the site of the worst terrorist attack in US history, he would condemn all forms of terrorism, not just al Qaeda. Leaving Hamas out of the equation leaves room for doubt, IMO.

I agree and I think he should clarify his position. But, that is probably not going to happen and we have to deal with it. Again, leaving out Hamas is not as bad as say if he left out TTP or the Haqqani network in Afgh/Pak or al Qaeda in Yemen.

ptown_trojans_1;462685 wrote:True. But, I'd mention the latest issue of Foreign Affairs and what reads like moderate position in order to bring in Hamas.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66541/daniel-byman/how-to-handle-hamas
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/opinion/24iht-edbyman.html

That said, the Hamas of 1988 is different than the Hamas in 2010. The 2006 elections and the 2007 take over changed the political wing. It is much more complex than quoting the Charter.
But, again, to me his views on al Qaeda and radical Islam matter more than Hamas.

What I find very interesting in all of this is how Hamas, and to a degree Hezbollah in Lebanon, are getting involved politically and getting elected democratically. Two groups that the US government does not like are going through the very process, democratic elections, that the US is waging war in the Middle East to establish.

Bigdogg;463067 wrote:I am sure they would be able to speak for the entire Muslim world. What an idiotic idea.

Thanks for your succinct reply. Well thought out. Bravo.

Part of the problem, as even addressed by ptown below, is that very few Americans really understands the Islamic religion. We all hear innuendos, rumors, and various stories about why certain sects of the religion of peace feel motivated and inspired to kill all the infidels and start a jihad. Why not get it out in the open where people can discuss it? Maybe a little education and enlightenment would go a long way, eh? If their terrorism is to end, it isn't going to come at the end of an AK-47. To me, the end of Islamic terrorism comes when the Islamic people take them down themselves internally. One way to spur this is to throw some sunshine on them and expose their religion for what it is and what it isn't. That's my point.

Thanks, ptown for at least considering it. Good stuff.

Not good:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606319.html?hpid=newswell
Note: Brian Fishman works directly behind me at New America and is fantastic on his analysis of Afg/Pak terrorism related stuff.

ptown_trojans_1;463471 wrote:Not good:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606319.html?hpid=newswell
Note: Brian Fishman works directly behind me at New America and is fantastic on his analysis of Afg/Pak terrorism related stuff.

Good read from the student's point of view.

But it goes back to what has been posted here multiple times....IF they would retract this site, find another, and be sensitive to the tragedy of Ground Zero, they would likely find themselves in the good graces of millions of Americans. The flames of hatred raging today regarding this whole mosque would be extinguished. By pushing and pushing this site, bound and determined to have it or else, they are helping to flame the radical Americans in this country who take out their hatred just as horribly as the Islamic terrorists. As we've all learned in grade school...it takes 2 to tangle, and neither side is going to relent. The solution is so simple and win-win....why won't they pick another site?

ptown_trojans_1;463471 wrote:Not good:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606319.html?hpid=newswell
Note: Brian Fishman works directly behind me at New America and is fantastic on his analysis of Afg/Pak terrorism related stuff.

That's definitely not good. Non-Muslims need to articulate that it's not Muslims that Americans are questioning, but rather their leaders/imams and those who speak for them.

Part of me wonders if Imam Rauf anticipated the backlash from the GZ mosque, and decided to proceed anyway to portray Islam as the victim in all this.

That anger, youth leaders and terrorism experts warn, could push some young Muslims into the arms of such extremists as U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who has been linked to several terrorist plots. In his recruiting efforts, Aulaqi often portrays Islam as being under attack by the West.
The most vociferous mosque opponents "do not know what they are doing," said Yahya Hendi, the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University. "They are radicalizing people."

I don't like that argument- it's like a built-in excuse: "If we can't build the mosque, then you're to blame for future increases in radicals and terrorist acts." And I don't think it's a civil rights issue either. Last time I checked, there weren't separate facilities in public places for Muslims/non-Muslims, etc. etc. They enjoy the same rights as all Americans (and waaaay more rights than non-Muslims- Jews and Christians- in heavily Muslim populated countries), despite protesters who wrongly take out their anger on them.

I have never bought into the idea that if you do X then it means Y is going to become a suicide bomber and take out a market full of civilians.

Like jhay, it's an excuse to be violent and nothing more. When you decide to become a terrorist, you are deciding to kill other human beings. Quite frankly when you lower your regard for life to that level, I don't give a damn WHY you're doing it; I just want your ass dead.

Again, this argument of "well they should just be glad we don't treat them like Christians and Jews in Muslim countries" is insane. Our liberties are determined by our constitution and populous. Not by what a country in the middle-east does. So why even make the comparison?

I see it like a porn shop. No one likes them in their town but unless they don't get zoning approval or break a law or something all we can do is say "that's not very classy". No more. We can't force people to not build a building on property they purchased just because we don't like it.

I'm bored. I rarely come here. I also didn't take the time to read all 14 or 15 pages.

However, is not the real shame of it all, that we as Americans have not erected a single monument near Ground Zero in coming up on a decade!? Just sayin'.

jhay78;462977 wrote:I was referring to the waterboarding Ahmad Rashad and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar comment. It added nothing to the debate.



I'm surprised it took til page 15 before someone brought out the "chickenhawk warmongerer" comment with reference to Nat'l Review. Yes they are deeply conservative, but they've been around awhile and have stood the test of time. Andy McCarthy, having prosecuted terrorists in the '90's, is more than your typical right-wing partisan hack- he knows a thing or two about Islam and terrorism. I thought his articles (four, I think) were spot on and actually added something to the debate.

Mark Steyn, John Podhoretz, Michael Ledeen, Jonah Golberg, Larry Kudlow, Clifford May....all pounded the drums for war in Iraq, all toot the horn for either Israel or the US to bomb Iran....and nary a one served even one flipping day sniffing a battlefield.

Personally, I can't stand people like that.

Moreover...in these authors' views, Israel is never to blame for anything....ever...for any reason...even though the State of Israel has more UN violations than any other nation on this planet, a country that has had some of it's own prime ministers...with their own personal resumes...of blowing up innocent people for a living...no differently than the Muslims these same authors decry.

If your gonna "contribute to the debate", then I would suggest you find a source that is devoid of such hypocrisy in furthering your argument.

Footwedge;463907 wrote:Mark Steyn, John Podhoretz, Michael Ledeen, Jonah Golberg, Larry Kudlow, Clifford May....all pounded the drums for war in Iraq, all toot the horn for either Israel or the US to bomb Iran....and nary a one served even one flipping day sniffing a battlefield.

Personally, I can't stand people like that.

If your gonna "contribute to the debate", then I would suggest you find a source that is devoid of such hypocrisy in furthering your argument.

That's funny- I don't remember quoting a single sentence from a single one of those people you can't stand. Not only are you not debating the ideas presented by McCarthy, you're not even attacking the source itself (McCarthy), you're attacking the site of the source.

BTW, the founder of National Review (the magazine, back in the '60's) , William F. Buckley, was against the invasion of Iraq, if I remember correctly.

Moreover...in these authors' views, Israel is never to blame for anything....ever...for any reason...even though the State of Israel has more UN violations than any other nation on this planet, a country that has had some of it's own prime ministers...with their own personal resumes...of blowing up innocent people for a living...no differently than the Muslims these same authors decry.

You forgot "has spent every second of its lifetime worrying about and having to defend its own existence." They don't get a pass from me on everything- but then again, what has that to do with the GZ mosque?

cruiser_96;463901 wrote:I'm bored. I rarely come here. I also didn't take the time to read all 14 or 15 pages.

However, is not the real shame of it all, that we as Americans have not erected a single monument near Ground Zero in coming up on a decade!? Just sayin'.

This is a good point.

jhay78;464046 wrote:That's funny- I don't remember quoting a single sentence from a single one of those people you can't stand. Not only are you not debating the ideas presented by McCarthy, you're not even attacking the source itself (McCarthy), you're attacking the site of the source.

If you can't understand the corollary here I don't know what to tell you. Let me be blunt...the National Review is a horrible source to use when trying to make a point. The National Review is a neoconservative, warmongering, extremely biased site. McCarthy position mirrors the position of this online publication. I listed 5 or 6 authors to whom I am familiar with...and as I stated above...they by definition, promote the fear of the Islam religion. That's what they do.

It would be akin to a liberal voicing an op ed as a reference from the Daily Kos. Exact same demagoguery..... from a group that is 180 degrees apart.

BTW, the founder of National Review (the magazine, back in the '60's) , William F. Buckley, was against the invasion of Iraq, if I remember correctly.

What does that have to do with today's National Review?

You forgot "has spent every second of its lifetime worrying about and having to defend its own existence." They don't get a pass from me on everything- but then again, what has that to do with the GZ mosque?

And they resorted to terrorism because of their own strife with human rights violations. Just as the Palestinians have done. A point that you have yet to acknowledge with any of your responses.

The attitudes of people that suffer from broad brushed Islamophobia, exacerbated by the words and writings of fundamentalist Christian factions, and those that write for the Weekly Standard and the National Review, increase the divide between religions, and by default further the agenda for more religious wars.

I don't know about you....but I would like to see the planet plot a course away from a world of terrorism....not implement rhetoric that fans the flames and by default, increases international terrorism.

As much as I despised the foreign policy of Bush 43, I would love for him to come out of hiding on this issue. Why? One of his very few highlights was when he spoke on national television...and told the American people in very clear words....that the religion of Islam had "nothing to do" with the attacks on 9-11. And for one of the very few times in his 8 year reign....he got it right.