The "WTC Mosque" hysteria, in a nutshell

[Cain]

I don't like that whole 'they need to be louder about being the good guys' stuff.

It's like, hey Synagogue. We're only angry because you're not being loud enough in denying your intent to implement the Zionist New World Order. And that's your fault for being too quiet, not our fault for being prejudiced.

I would agree, but you've been awfully quiet about publically denouncing Geert Wilders, the Holocaust and the War of Spanish Succession and I'm not sure I can be seen to be taking a stance with you without these concessions. 

[Jenne]

  People have been saying FOR YEARS (like, about 9 of them) that the moderate Muslims need to be LOUDER than the fanatics.  And if they weren't gonna BE louder, then perhaps they didn't exist.  I heard that argument over at MW in PP all the fucking time.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Look, guys. It's not that Islam is evil, it's just dangerous. I mean, it's simple logic:

A. SOME MUSLIMS ARE EXTREMISTS
B. SOME EXTREMISTS ARE MUSLIMS
C. SOME+SOME=ALL
D. THEREFORE ALL MUSLIMS ARE EXTREMISTS (unless they are patriots, but those guys don't hang out in mosques anyway).

[Cain]

http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/will-you-condemn-thon.html

Will-You-Condemn-A-Thon
Sporting Pursuit

Amusing internet pastime, in which several Decents quiz a pro-fascist, repeatedly demanding denunciation of a vast range of randomly-chosen murders, atrocities, war crimes and military actions in an increasingly hectoring tone.

"I agree, Guantanamo Bay is an affront to democratic ideals. But Will You Condemn Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli restaurants?...

Yes, well, Do You Condemn Jihadist chlorine-bomb attacks?...

Okay, I knew you would be too sly to openly support such acts, but Will You Condemn terrorist attacks upon the American military?

What about the Battle of Teutoberg Forest, then, Will You Condemn that? ...I see.

...Oh, fuck off, Nazi."

Secondary stage of the Decent Debating Technique, the Will-You-Condemn-A-Thon can only be averted by reciting the Catalogue of Contempt in its entirety.

See also Whatabout?, Terrorists Are Bad, Emotathlon

[Jenne]

...and now Christopher Hitchens, the fat alcoholic, is now saying that Rauf is an extremist (or very close to):

From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. For example, here is Rauf's editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that:

He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law.

Coyly untranslated here (perhaps for "outreach" purposes), Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs. Under this dispensation, "the will of the people" is a meaningless expression, because "the people" are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.) As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic.

I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. The letterhead of the statement, incidentally, describes him as the Cordoba Initiative's "Founder and Visionary." Why does that not delight me, either?

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter ...

rest in link

[tyrannosaurus vex]

...and now Christopher Hitchens, the fat alcoholic, is now saying that Rauf is an extremist (or very close to):

From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. For example, here is Rauf's editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that:

He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law.

Coyly untranslated here (perhaps for "outreach" purposes), Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs. Under this dispensation, "the will of the people" is a meaningless expression, because "the people" are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.) As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic.

I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. The letterhead of the statement, incidentally, describes him as the Cordoba Initiative's "Founder and Visionary." Why does that not delight me, either?

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter ...

rest in link

THE MAN HAS ESOPHAGEAL CANCER! LAY OFF!

[Jenne]

...doesn't mean I have to like his politics.  He's a reactionary.  I'm sorry he has cancer.  Still and all, some of his theories, man, ugh.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

...doesn't mean I have to like his politics.  He's a reactionary.  I'm sorry he has cancer.  Still and all, some of his theories, man, ugh.

Will you condemn attacks on cancer patients?

[Jenne]

...doesn't mean I have to like his politics.  He's a reactionary.  I'm sorry he has cancer.  Still and all, some of his theories, man, ugh.

Will you condemn attacks on cancer patients?

Apparently.  Not.  Depends.

[Cramulus]

CANCER PATIENTS ARE WIENERS

THAT'S RIGHT, I SAID IT

[tyrannosaurus vex]

CANCER PATIENTS ARE WIENERS

THAT'S RIGHT, I SAID IT

At least they're not TERRORISTS

[Disco Pickle]

Not sure if this one got posted yet.  The first politician I've heard come out and say exactly what this is: a property rights issue being muddled up by assholes looking to get elected by mob mentality for taking their uneducated and borderline racist position on the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ6Hzf0x1vk&feature=player_embedded

mutha fuckin Ron Paul.. 

I'm truly glad this man would rather be right than be elected to a higher office.

More politicians should speak truth to stupidity.

[Jenne]

Ron Paul says a lot of stuff that sorta makes sense from time to time.  And then he says a lot of stuff that's pretty fucked up. 

...and then there's his SON...

[Disco Pickle]

Ron Paul says a lot of stuff that sorta makes sense from time to time.  And then he says a lot of stuff that's pretty fucked up.

...and then there's his SON... argh

Even the people whose philosophy of government I don't agree with say something that makes sense every now and again.

it's still better than the ones who don't make sense ANY of the time..

Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi come to mind immediately.

[Thurnez Isa]

...and now Christopher Hitchens, the fat alcoholic, is now saying that Rauf is an extremist (or very close to):

His partner in crime half-ass-philosopher Sam Harris had jumped on the band wagon a little before that
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/

Should a 15-story mosque and Islamic cultural center be built two blocks from the site of the worst jihadist atrocity in living memory? Put this way, the question nearly answers itself. This is not to say, however, that I think we should prevent our fellow citizens from building "the ground zero mosque." There is probably no legal basis to do so in any case--nor should there be. But the margin between what is legal and what is desirable, or even decent, leaves room for many projects that well-intentioned people might still find offensive. If you can raise the requisite $100 million, you might also build a shrine to Satan on this spot, complete with the names of all the non-believing victims of 9/11 destined to suffer for eternity in Hell. You could also build an Institute of "9/11 Truth," catering to the credulity, masochism, and paranoia of the 16 percent of Americans who imagine that the World Trade Center was intentionally demolished by agents of the U.S. government. Incidentally, any shrine to conspiracy thinking should probably also contain a mosque, along with a list of the 4,000 Jews who suspiciously declined to practice their usury in the Twin Towers on the day of the attack.

The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory--and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice.